Could and did. I appreciate your wording, too; do be careful in the future (and indeed for the duration of this current AfD). -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey there Hoary, thought I'd drop by and say hi. I was driving back from Cleveland Ohio (USA), and was thinking about our conversation about all the PA and CIV stuff and all, and an old memory popped into my head. Some 25 or so years ago when my daughter was maybe 6 or 7 ... she came home one day a bit despondent, and quiet. I asked her what was wrong - and she told me about a neighbor boy (that she kinda liked) at school. She said: "Dad, he's being such a poopey head". Poopey head? ... lmao .. is that not the best PA you've ever heard? Not sure why - but I thought you might get a kick out of that. :) — Ched : ? 17:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, hello Ched. Well, now that your Hupmobile is safely parked in my garage and I can assure you of a night in my spare bedroom, have a beer. Now, can we please stop talking about poop (eww!) and instead talk discuss Art? (inspiration) And when we're tired of that, let's retire to our respective rooms and forget this interwebs thing and instead read a book. No, don't worry, I have a spare toothbrush for you. -- Hoary (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Audemars Piguet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Mechanic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Hoary/Archive28. WikiProject British Empire, an outreach effort supporting development of British Empire related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in British Empire related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the British Empire. If you are interested please add your Username, date and time, and area of interest to the members page here.
Thank you, but I'm not particularly interested in British empire related topics. My participation in that direction is small and recent and prompted merely by the (surprisingly secret) matter of one, empire-irrelevant linguist, the dubiously notable (?) Hans Marchand. -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry. What did look strange was that you had (presumably by accident) allotted the commas so that it seemed as if my comment was addressed to you. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
(In case you have stopped looking for replies) To tag a photo with questionable permission I would use {{subst:npd}} (which substs to {{di-no permission}}). —teb728tc 23:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Excellent -- {{di-no permission}} is just what I'd been looking for. And then I was diverted by other, image-irrelevant matters, so I never got to use the template that was recommended previously. I'll be using {{di-no permission}} then. Thank you for telling me of this template. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Why would you do that, replace a removed external that has not been in the article previously and is clearly contentious and requires discussion ? Youreallycan 11:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
You mean, why would I revert your removal from 'Campaign for "santorum" neologism' of the link to the "Spreading Santorum" website? Because it's the centre of the campaign, which has been judged to be of encyclopedic value. Where a campaign has a website and an article here, the link to the website goes into the article. -- Hoary (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Its an attack site against a living person that we have an article about - attacking him is its only purpose - why do you think it has been kept out of the article for this long? If you want to include it open a discussion on the talkpage don't blindly revert it back in. Youreallycan 11:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
why do you think it has been kept out of the article for this long? Hard for me to guess, so I tried looking. Where is the decision that it should be removed? (I do see this discussion, but it's inconclusive. I may have missed something later.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Have you gone into the blogger site and read some of the personal attacks posted there? Anyway, if you want to add it, as its previously been discussed and kept out - don't you think its addition now warrants a talkpage discussion? Seems reasonable to me, better than warring it in. Youreallycan 11:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The blogger site: Do you mean spreadingsantorum.com? If so, yes I have, briefly. -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
In case you hadn't seen this...Clearly an attack only account, I've blocked it indeff. --Hu12 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Eh? I see no attack; I merely see fantasy. I'm sorry about this; it deprives a number of people of a good chuckle. But thank you for tipping me off to what you deleted, as I could enjoy reading it. Perhaps I'll add it to the collection on my user page. -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
George appealed the block. I had to agree with his appeal. (Actually if the reason for the block had been worded differently, I might well have agreed with it and ignored the likely appeal.) So I unblocked him, restored his message, and responded to that. We'll see. -- Hoary (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I've just remembered/realized that you have been a contributor to the AfD in question. Indeed, you were its instigator. Other than for extraordinary reasons (libel, blatant copyright violation, etc), you should not delete the comment of somebody who disagrees with the position you've taken in an AfD. If it's blazingly obvious that the comment merits deletion, then say so at WP:AN/I or wherever, and somebody uninvolved will agree and carry out the appropriate administrative chores. -- Hoary (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Hoary. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page. Message added 23:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I added some references to The Izu Dancer and removed the tag (since it's no longer true). Why don't you add some references, if you have them, for the film adaptations? Timothy Perper (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Time and energy willing, I'll try to do just that. In the meantime, thank you for working on it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Great! Maybe there's some stuff hidden on the Wiki entry for the TV show? Timothy Perper (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't quite follow. ¶ This article lists five TV shows. Like the huge majority of ja:WP, it's completely unsourced. However, somebody with a bit of time and patience could look up the names it gives in a newspaper database. (That's what I did today for the films; I struck lucky with one article that very briefly described all of them.) I rarely have access to the database that I used or any of those for alternatives to Asahi. -- Hoary (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
My turn to say "sorry" -- I wasn't clear. I mean this article, here on Wiki: Izu no odoriko (1993 TV drama) -- it gives some details about the show airing on Tokyo TV in the early 1990s -- maybe some hunting around in Jp newspapers and stuff might turn up some information. Hope that's clearer. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah. It has no sourcing whatever and was even titled with a spurious extra mora (Izu no odorikko) when I discovered it the other day, so I wouldn't trust it at all. Again, the ja-WP article on the story lists the TV adaptation (though does so without a source); it's the names as they appear in Japanese that will be a lot easier to google. Incidentally, I'm not sure that you are familiar with the (publicly available) internet in Japanese -- if you are, my apologies for insulting your knowledge/intelligence! -- but it's very feeble compared with what's in English. There's tons of mere bloggery, but it's hard to find reliable sources. For subjects such as this, I've learned not to bother with it and instead to wait until I'm in a library that's paid for a subscription to the database of one or more of the newspapers. (And even these newspaper databases are disappointing, often merely supplying the publication details of articles but not the articles themselves.) Of course there's also a huge industry of books about pop culture, but for me that would mean going to a different library or [shudder!] paying my own money for used copies. ¶ (My additional hurdle is minimal interest in the content of Japanese television.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
My sympathies, really. I detest that kind of off-the-top-of-the-head, make-it-up-as-you-go bloggery and egonet stuff. OK, so we can let this one wait until something surfaces somewhere. We've made quite a dent in this article as it is. Timothy Perper (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually a large minority of Japanese bloggery appears to have been done very scrupulously. It's imaginable too that some of the blogs demonstrably have a good reputation for fact-checking, a reputation would actually render them usable as RS. But I don't know about this sort of thing. -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Neither do I, so I adopt a wait-and-see attitude. If proven, great; if not, oh well... Timothy Perper (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been trying to locate information about the first (Seidensticker) translation. This is a real mess. The Atlantic archives give January 1955 as the publication date; a book published by Tuttle gives December 1954; and an article in the Japan Times gives 1955, no month, as the pub date. The only sources I've found so far for 1952 or 1958 don't give sources. If truth were established by consensus, I'd guess early 1955, but truth isn't established by consensus since these people copy from each other.
How about this change to the sentence already in the article:
The short story was first translated into English by Edward Seidensticker and published in an abridged form under the title, "The Izu Dancer," in The Atlantic Monthly in 1955.<ref>A variety of dates from 1952 to 1958 can be found on the web, but the archives of the Atlantic give a publication date of January 1955. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/theatlantic/results.html?st=advanced&QryTxt=Yasunari+Kawabata&type=current&sortby=REVERSE_CHRON&datetype=6&frommonth=11&fromday=1&fromyear=1950&tomonth=02&today=28&toyear=1959&By=&Title=
</ref>
FTR, I'm involved. Not only have I edited the article on and off over two years' time, but today I full-protected the redirect and blocked the latest SPA. --Orlady (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe I was too hesitant. Anyway, thank you for this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
He's a newbie, young, seems to have an overly-inflated view of his own competence, and is engaged in reviling other editors, OR, synthesis, and edit warring at Occupy Wall Street. A stern warning and some advice from you as the blocking admin might be in order. Maybe he can be saved, and maybe not. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
What a pickle I woke up to! But thanks for alerting me to it (and for your kind words somewhere on a sentence of mine). -- Hoary (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hoary, thanks for your remarks at ANI. I've run into Ian.thomson before and have had no complaints, but this was a bit unseemly. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
As for me, I have a terrible memory for usernames. I think I've seen Ian.thomson's before but have no idea where. ¶ I can understand how one can sleepily add a template that invites somebody to do the impossible, and I don't condemn this; I'm surprised when the the adder then blames the template and does nothing to fix the matter. ¶ Now, if J. Lane and other usernames and an IP number who all seem closely related are blocked indefinitely, there'll be no tears from me. But that's a different matter. Though then again it may be related: when blocking somebody indefinitely, one should be, and should be seen to be, scrupulously fair. -- Hoary (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi
You have posted a {{BLP unsourced section|date=February 2012}} on the "selected exhibitions" section of an article I just had updated on this page
I later added the additional sources. Can you see if these are satisfactory so that the BLP can be removed?
More widely, the main reason if I'm writing to you is not specifically this page, it is the issue of sources in this kind of sections (publications / exhibitions etc. of artists, writers, filmmakers, etc.).
I have been writing several biographies of (mainly) Lebanese artists, being inspired by other good articles in Wikipedia, and trying to be as adequate as possible in citing sources. In most of the articles I found, there were always sources cited in the biographic notice, but lists of exhibitions or publications were merely sourced (as this kind of information is usually easily verifiable and can hardly by biased...) So, I wished to have your opinion about it...
Thanks :-)
(Lea Sarraf (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC))
Hello and thank you for asking. In future, though, if a section of an article has an "unreferenced" template, and you've added sources that are unlikely to be questioned, you're free to remove the template. Though it's better to hold off if there's some dispute in the talk page.
I'm painfully aware that sourcing lists of exhibitions (other than to the exhibitor) is tedious work. My biggest job of this kind was this one: so exhausting that I had no stamina left for what I'd originally intended, improving the text of the article. (Incidentally, I didn't touch the "needs additional sources" template at the top, for my own amusement, given that it had over eighty discrete footnotes by the time I left it. Anyone else was and is welcome to remove it.)
I don't quite understand your comment lists of exhibitions or publications were merely sourced (as this kind of information is usually easily verifiable and can hardly [be] biased...). "Merely sourced"?
Actually what seems normal is for the websites of individual galleries that have exhibited somebody's work to copy lists of earlier exhibitions from other galleries or the exhibitor, and to paste them credulously and without any check. Or anyway this to me is the most obvious explanation of the phenomenon of identical spelling mistakes (some of them rather obvious) in the lists of different exhibitors.
It's good that you're writing up Lebanese artists. Please keep going. One request, though: Please don't put lists in newest-to-oldest order. Instead, where a chronological order is appropriate, from oldest at the top to newest at the bottom. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all this invaluable information and advice. Your work is quite impressing! (Lea Sarraf (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC))
Hello! I see that you commented at the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank worth. That article has now been completely rewritten, just in case you want to take a second look at it. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have read your latest response on the Obama talk page and wanted to let you know that I have responded to it. Look forward to further discussion.'— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.220 (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Hoary. Can you lend some expertise and ideas to the page I'm now editing on Baku (spirit)? Over the years, I've been the only person who has systematically edited the page, adding most of the current references, plus rewriting. At the moment, another editor -- an interesting artist with some rather traditional ideas about Japanese folklore -- has raised a number of issues. We could use another set of eyes and lenses. Thanks! Timothy Perper (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Expertise, no, sorry. (To me, Baku is on the Caspian sea.) But I'll take a look and see if there's something I can do. -- Hoary (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Expertise? This is Wikipedia, man, who cares about expertise? I shouldn't be cynical -- what me, cynical? -- or maybe it'd be better to say "dubious" about issues of expertise on Wiki. Wiki needs all the help it can get, including this article. I added a bunch of references ever since 2007, and have removed a fair amount of unsourced opinion as well. What would help now -- there's no big hurry about it -- is a solid reference to historical changes in the portrayal of the baku; probably something exists in Japanese, and I asked about this on a manga/anime listserve I'm on, so who knows -- maybe something useful will surface. Thanks again, and I hope there's more you can do! Timothy Perper (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, OK, I'll take a look. But not now. In the meantime, here's something for you. Take a look at this page. It's a list of articles being rewritten by students of the University of Toronto, which I'd thought was a real university, where people have to read, think, write, read what they've written, and then rethink and rewrite before handing in assignments. The sample of listed articles I've looked at is small and very possibly unrepresentative, but every time the well-intentioned students have screwed things up terribly. -- Hoary (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Good grief. Some of these topics would challenge a professional writer, like the Ontario Hydro piece! I'm glad that I am not their teacher or supervisor. I also wonder what the students will discover about such things as "point of view" -- it probably won't be what Wikipedia wants! This is the blind leading the blind. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
You see correctly. And it's a bio that -- at least as I read it there -- is unadulterated by any trace of independent sourcing. -- Hoary (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Just see that it's already live after a copy-paste move... May need a history merge, although I don't see how this would survive AFD... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to send it to AfD. As you'll see, I made a first stab at improving it. But having done that, I wondered why I'd bothered. Couldn't the kids at least write decently? Consider this: This study deals with the relationship between relevant information and immigrants. This study shows a plethora of surveys that deal exclusively with this issue. This study explores the complexity of this situation and offers justifications as to why problems occur in the first place. When I was a first-year undergrad, my first drafts were better than that. -- Hoary (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I've put a note on their discussion page, probably a bit more bitey than I should have, but I waited several hours to cool down and this was the best I could come up with... That a student (presumably) would come up with "Hey, I have this great idea! Let's make a bio of our teacher!!" is weird enough. That the teacher would agree to it is even weirder... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, this AfD could probably use some input from someone with your expertise. Cheers! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd never heard of him, but I wouldn't expect to have done so. I do have a copy of Pranks, but not of its second volume. So much for my "expertise". ¶ Yes, the article looks pretty ropy to me, but then again I don't (yet) find the deletion arguments persuasive. Still thinking about this one. -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Hoary. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. StevenZhangDR goes to Wikimania! 01:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Allahabad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Emerson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I have wielded my blade and updated the tags and left a note on talk. Notability is in question, could go to AfD as you said. Let me know if you need more help. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the tip. I'd forgotten all about him. What a strange person he is! Not quite knowing what to do, I've passed the word along. -- Hoary (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I've just come across this article after reading about Bailey's current art exhibition in London: see here. It seems to me such an eminent English photographer deserves a far better biography on Wikipedia. Given your own interest, perhaps you could contribute - or encourage some other Wikipedians to step in. I'll try to get back to it myself it due course but am pretty tied up with other work at the moment. – Ipigott (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
He certainly deserves a better article, yes. He is (or was) a remarkable fashion photographer, and no doubt there's much more about him that's worthwhile and available in accessible "RS"es. But I don't have much time for any WP activity, and the time that I do have I'd really prefer to spend on photographers whose work is of more interest to me. Hmm. -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Well maybe I'll get around to it myself one of these days although I keep getting bogged down in more and more articles outside my main areas of interest. I'll put something on the talk page in the hope that someone who's watching the article (if anyone is!) will come in and help. Hope you had a good time with the Ruskies - or whoever they were. - Ipigott (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Belaruskies, and those west and north thereof. And yes, I have a photo book from Belarus by somebody who richly merits an article, but coverage of whom is, unfortunately for me, mostly in Russian, Belarusian, and German (example). If you appreciate wit in contemporary art (not merely photography) and have the good fortune to have access to a cosmopolitan bookstore, then try this modestly-priced survey of work by the same man. ¶ As for Bailey, I think of his more-or-less contemporaries and Don McCullin immediately comes to mind. An outstanding photographer whose work does happen to interest me and whose article is predictably dreadful. -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
He certainly does deserve better, brought home to me very clearly now that I've read this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on Gladwell. Best wishes Span (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks like I didn't have to wait that long for some Gladwell criticism action. Lovin ' it. 50.47.119.246 (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
You can add MSNBC to the growing list of SHAME exposure. The Gladwell bio will reflect his corporate whoredom. It's just a matter of time. added at 22:11, 21 June 2012 by 50.47.119.246 (talk)
The odd thing about the article is that I sense a certain minor notability (even in the odd sense in which Wikipedia uses the word) about the subject, an article about whom is prevented by the decision to ignore our house rules and also to add peculiarly silly little ingredients. I bring you this specimen: Recently, his family intermarried with British Royalty <ref>[[Lady_Nicholas_Windsor]]</ref>. Now, where might the article-worthiness of this Wikipedia-articled Lady_Nicholas_Windsor reside? Nowhere that I can see, except that She has [...] written for The Tatler where she is a contributing editor and for Vogue USA <ref name="vogue">[http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/my-royal-wedding-paola-de-frankopan-remembers-her-own-marriage-into-the-british-royal-family/]</ref> She has published and [sic] introduction to the history of the Sanctuary of Trsat 'Trsatska Sveta Kuča', in Croatian. Very minor stuff indeed. Another one for AfD? -- Gentleman Hoary (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, let's see. I think we might start by commenting out the categories. -- Hoary (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Commented out. Irrelevant, but: If you have a few minutes free, take a look at this and what's below about the article on the popular writer Malcolm Gladwell. Feel free to contribute there, and of course to disagree with me! -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for blacklisting a spam at the Tenga article. The same IP user is trying to do it again, this time with a Facebook page.[1] (This time a bot reverted it within 64 minutes.) Could you blacklist this URL also? Thank you. --朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Hoary. Sometime since we've been in touch but I see you are still going strong. As you not only seem interested in language but also have lots of Wikipedia experience, I thought I would contact you on something I have recently observed in Wikipedia articles which I believe ought to be fixed. It's about the line breaks which occur automatically when hyphenated words come at a point in a sentence when a line break is needed (such as the breaking of Pont-Aven in a recent article I wrote on Henri Delavallée). The problem is that recently I have observed breaks when the hyphen is incorrectly wrapped over to the next line, for example:
self
-esteem
instead of (the correct)
self-
esteem
The choice of whether the hyphen should appear on the next line or not seems to be based simply on the number of characters per line rather than on any rules. You can perhaps see the effects better in the examples here but of course it all depends on the screen display you are using. I would have thought that with almost 4 million articles in English, a problem like this would have been resolved once and for all but apparently not. Any ideas about where to go to have it fixed? We should not be setting bad examples for non-native English speakers. - Ipigott (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Aha, I'm still "going strong" -- yes, I like that: it suggests that although an actuary would suggest betting that I'd already be pushing up daisies, I still manage to press keys on my 'puter. ¶ I look at your sandbox and all seems well. I squeeze the right-hand side inwards, forcing wrapping of the text to occur elsewhere, and all still looks well. A reason may be that the particular browser I happen to be using now (Iceweasel 3.5.16) treats regular hyphens as non-breaking hyphens. (If it can't fit the whole of "self-esteem" on one line, it will move the whole to the next line.) Later today I'll try with different browsers. But really, this seems to me to be a browser problem, not a Wikipedia problem. (Which browsers have you used?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't considered the browser. I was in fact using Internet Explorer 9 as I believe it is the most widely used browser and I like to see what the majority of other users are likely to see. I was indeed unable to reproduce the problem with Firefox - so it could well be connected to the browser. Strangely, the examples in my sandbox now display correctly although I have not changed anything and the computer has been running non-stop. However, with IE9 the problem is still occurring in the Henri Delavallée article in the sentence "In 1894, he met Paul Gauguin in Pont-Aven." I can, of course, get it to display correctly by changing the character size (Ctrl C and turning the mouse wheel). The funny thing is that I can't remember experiencing the problem before. But someone, somewhere seems to be working on it or the sandbox display would not have changed. Perhaps tomorrow even the Delavallée article will display correctly. But in any case, I would have thought Wikipedia could sort out the problem so that whatever the browsers try to do, the Wikipedia display will be correct. - Ipigott (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I was busier today than I'd expected and I'll be too busy for the next 20 hours or so to play around with different browsers. But browsers often do different things, and I am sure that it is not the job of any website designer to make a design that will work with all browsers, even all widely used browsers. Instead, one should design according to W3C's recommendations where these (i) are more or less supported by most browsers in common use and (ii) don't fail catastrophically with any browser that's hard to avoid. -- Hoary (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
It appears that 107.6.124.27, which has been commenting on you know who's talk page has been blocked because that IP address is a proxy. Please be aware of this new behavior. I was under the impression that it is permissible to strike/revert comments from such users. Is this correct? Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hello Hoary. About WP:AN3#Sandra Fluke reported by User:Hoary (Result: ). This is not in the usual form of requests to WP:AN3. Would you please give some thought to withdrawing the report? If not, can be more specific as to the edit warring and the individuals who you think need admin action. At first glance, the talk page seems to be on its way to reaching a conclusion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Ed, thank you for the thoughtful and polite form of your request. I've given some thought to removing my request, and decline to do so. The top of WP:AN/I has a (normally hidden/collapsed) section asking people contemplating a post to ask themselves whether that is the most appropriate page in which to do so. It reads in part (after markup-stripping): To report edit warring, see the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. And the name of WP:AN3 ends not "Edit warriors" but "Edit warring". Posting a note there about general edit warring, rather than about one or more edit warriors, indeed seemed unconventional, but it also seemed, and seems, legitimate. You are of course welcome to mark the item as "resolved" or whatever. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your research. Please feel free to contribute to the article as you see fit. More knowledgeable and balanced editors like you are needed on these topics which are infested with agenda-driven POV pushers. I personally think the twitter part, is also questionable, given National Post's history on these kind of issues, and should be at least attributed to them, if not shortened or removed. Kurdo777 (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
What do you think of the fact that Roland Elliott Brown, doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, yet almost 30% of Majd's article, who is a clearly a more notable individual, is devoted to one negative review of him by Brown, because it was cherry-picked by a sympathetic editor to Brown's positions. Does this sound right to you as far as Wikipedia polices are concerned? I tried to put them all in one place, for proper attribution. But I still think the article has a serious case WP:COAT. Kurdo777 (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Your question seems to assume that the review by Brown is negative. I didn't find it so. But whether or not the review is negative, yes, it would be good to cite some other sources. If you have some reliable ones, please feel free to cite them. -- Hoary (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hoary, I recently created the following stub: Vanishing Spray. Sadly it doesn't make things actually vanish. Notwithstanding and if you care too, would you edit the article a bit? I am curious to see how it would look after you applied your touch. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm hamstrung by my near total ignorance of sport(s), but anyway I had a bash. This bit is interesting: it disappears entirely within 45 seconds with no adverse effect to the playing surface. Its sellers would say that, I suppose. But just what is the stuff (none of the cited sources says), and what's the estimate of its effect, not from marketing people but from horticulturalists (if that's the right word) or chemists? -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Very nice! How did you find that new source? I searched high and low and couldn't find a thing in the product itself, other than the weight of the can. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Might as well continue this conversation hereFasttimes68 (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I found it by gurgling; maybe by gurgle-newsing rather than simple gurgling, but I now forget. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's a proposed change to the Majd article I want to make sure is OK with recent editors (follows BLP and all) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Stanley Kubrick had an answer for this in Full Metal Jacket. You strike me as a man whose choice in cinema might be a bit more discriminating then the typical Hollywood offerings, so I suspect you may have seen this film and might understand the reference. It would have been money better well spent. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, no, I missed it. I enjoyed The Killing and Paths of Glory, but after a couple of disappointments stopped bothering to see his new films as they came out. -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Too bad he went out on such a bad note with Eyes Wide Shut. Make a mental note to see FMJ if you liked PoG. Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Hoary. You have new messages at Guerillero's talk page. Message added 19:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I was too late to remove the rant from Bias - luckily someone else took care of it - but I appreciated the reference :) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm dropping a note to you since you added the "notability" to The Swordless Samurai in March 2009. Just to notify that I have turned this page into a redirect to Tim Clark (author). I also put an autobiography tag on the Tim Clark page and added a note to the talk page to justify that. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well done, and thank you for telling me about it. Ah, books about "wisdom". I have many books, but curiously none of them has "wisdom" (or indeed "Wisden") in its title. ¶ I'm particularly puzzled by this bit: became a minor bestseller in Indonesia. My admittedly caffeine-challenged brain can't quite get around the concept of the minorly superlative. ("Sold moderately well in Indonesia", perhaps?) -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
There was no response by anyone, so I sent the article to Articles for Deletion. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sandra Fluke. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Casprings (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Please take a look at the #13 request. I think it's a simple mistake. If you agree with me, correction please. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry Mari, I took an unannounced break from WP. Now I'm back. Although I'll take it slow for a couple more weeks at least, I'll be checking this talk page of mine and I'll try to respond to reasonable pleas for help (like this one of yours). I've also responded here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply on the article talk page. But...the problem has not been fixed yet. 気がつかなかった？ 休暇ボケ？ The problem I'm talking about is this one. OP wrote "2)...«Zenji and Hanako Tatsushirō» to «Zenji and Hanako Koga», " and see my suggestion. Because of the pre-Meiji name order, some editor mistook Tatsushirō as family name. So it should be fixed. わかった？ The another reason I asked you to fix the mistake was you understand Japanese and Japanese names だったのに。 Now, fix it please. Oda Mari (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Hope your break was a enjoyable one. Oda Mari (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, you're assuming that I looked at the article. I didn't. I looked at it, there was indeed a problem, and so I fixed the problem. ¶ And my break? I was merely busy with other, WP-irrelevant matters. (I still am.) ¶ A rarity: a public comment on the matter that's not idiotic. Very welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the edit. I like your version. Japan does not retaliate the way China has been doing, you know. Murakami's comment was not needed. Fortunately or not, I've been deeply involved in the article. It was hard a year ago with this. Well, I always think China's claim is いちゃもん/いいがかり, but could not find the equivalent in en. What would you translate the ja word? Oda Mari (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I have had to suppress a great deal of unsourced libelous information at Talk:James Eagan Holmes which violates WP:BLP. I realize this is in contradiction to your edits. I have done the best I can, but unavoidably other material has also been lost. User:Fred BauderTalk 02:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me. (Actually I'd already noticed.) Of course I have no objection whatever to your deletions. -- Hoary (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Pictures for biographies of living French executives
I am presently writing biographies of top notch French executives. I would like to add a picture of them but do not know exactly how to deal with the law.
Jean-Paul Herteman ; I uploaded a picture of him on Commons, but I am afraid it won't work.
Would you be so kind as to give me some tips in order not to infringe the US law ?
Thanks in advance for your help. Euroflux (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I suppose that you are referring to commons:File:Herteman.jpg. This is described as coming from this page of journaldunet.com. The page does not say anything about copyright, and therefore its content must be presumed to be [conventionally] copyright. No, it's worse than that: There's a conspicuous link at the foot of the page to this page about legal issues. The latter page says Tous les droits des auteurs des Oeuvres protégées reproduites et communiquées sur ce site, sont réservés. Sauf autorisation, toute utilisation des Oeuvres autres que la reproduction et la consultation individuelles et privées sont interdites. This obviously contradicts any claim of copyleft (such as Creative Commons or GFDL), and of course also makes it very clear that the photograph is not in the public domain.
You may upload a photograph that is in the public domain or that is copyleft. To be in the public domain, a photo of a living person must have been explicitly donated to the public domain by the person who would normally hold the copyright. (The copyright holder must explicitly waive his or her copyright.) To be copyleft (whether CC or GFDL), such a license must be explicitly attached by the copyright holder.
Note that there are different kinds of CC license, and some are not usable for Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia.
You may not claim "fair use" for the photograph of a living person.
The normal way for photos of people like this to be added is for Wikipedia editors to take the photos themselves, and then either donate them to the public domain or copyleft them. -- 13:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Elaboration: In en:Wikipedia, you may not claim "fair use" for the photograph of a living person; in Commons, you may not claim it for any image. -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
