I'm sorry, but I have no knowledge whatever of dermatology or anything related to it, and thus hesitate to attempt to improve the prose. I do wish the article well, however. -- Hoary (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, please be more careful when talking about living persons as you did here. This is obviously a controversial topic, and some of your comments could offend people reading. Spring12 (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Errol Sawyer article
Dear Hoary, after waiting for 2 months in vain for DGG to put the Errol Sawyer article back on, I would like to ask your advise. Do you have an e-mail address I can send information to? Thank you very much,
WP:DRV -- however, it will be much better if you instead edit the article scrupulously and work to get MBisanz's OK. -- Hoary (talk
) 10:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Rodney Lough Jr.
I have noticed your edits and you seem to know about photography.
I have spent time fixing up this complete fluff piece on Rodney Lough Jr.. Do you know anything about this guy? The article seemed just a huge promotional exercise that Lough had put together. Is this guy worthy of a wikipedia entry? Thanks Jenafalt (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've never heard of him. However, large-format color landscapes aren't my thing, so the fact that I've never heard of him means nothing.
Both his books are published by "Lough Road". The title (in the HTML sense) of his website is "The Lough Road".This hagioblography on him is titled "The Lough Road". I think it's safe to infer that both his books are self-published.
That earlier version of the WP article says (and in bold): Rodney [sic] strictly abstains from using color filters and digital effects. That's odd: Googling had also taken me here, an amazon.com comment (or anyway the top part thereof) that seems to have been removed.
Well, it seems that he verifiably runs an industry selling beautiful images of beautiful scenery. Does he merit an article here? I don't have an immediate answer to that. -- Hoary (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
PS this long thread is most interesting, and worth reading all the way through. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Grass Mud Horse
Your assistance would be appreciated concerning ja:草泥馬, as to where exactly the interwiki links go. For me, they should logically be linked to Grass Mud Horse and zh:草泥馬, but another editor pointed out that there is some content which suggests that the JP article could have been misnamed because there are some references to the Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures. Neither of our Japanese skills are of a sufficient level to solve this one. The discussion is here. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it's the same thing.
And what a bizarre article it is. I quote:
欧米では『grass－mud horse』と呼ばれている。 [...] 『草泥馬』は英語でfuck your motherという意味がある中国語を動物の名前のように同音の漢字を当てたものである。
which is something like:
In the west [literally, in Europe and (the) America(s)], it is called "grass-mud horse". [...] 草泥馬 uses for the animal hanzi that are homophones for Chinese that means what in English is "fuck your mother".
(1) 草, 泥, 馬 are in Japanese very humdrum characters, used for writing not only Sino-Japanese compounds but also the regular Japanese words kusa, doro, uma, respectively the commonest terms meaning grass, mud, horse. There's no need to gloss them for Japanese readers, unless perhaps it's to reassure them that in Chinese they are no different from Japanese. (Of course plenty of Sino-Japanese kanji have acquired exclusively Japanese uses, and for all I know plenty of hanzi may be used for morphemes whose meanings have changed since their export to Korea and Japan.)
(2) 欧米 covers a wide area. I'd be surprised if the term is "grass-mud horse" in, say, France.
(3) The writers of the Japanese can't bring themselves to present 肏你妈, let alone to gloss it straightforwardly in Japanese, おかあちゃんをやれ.
Thank, Hoary. So you're saying that the interwiki link to/from Mud Grass Horse is correct and appropriate. That being the case, I shall remove the link to/from Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures. BTW, it's untranslatable in French, which is why Ive gone for fr:Cheval de l’herbe et de la boue, which is a literal translation used in one of the sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, fr:Cheval de l’herbe et de la boue indeed exists, but shouldn't it be fr:Cheval de l'herbe et de la boue [ugly apostrophe]? Not that I mind, but if somebody will object later, better fix it earlier to reduce the total amount of work. Oh, and are grass and mud separate? My own guess (unhampered by any knowledge of Chinese whatever) was that it might be grassed-over mud, or a marsh. -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Heads up
You're being discussed
Sheree Silver articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk
) 04:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, I'm really sorry if I upset you in any way with my observations there. I was discussing the consensus reached with Black Kite, to make sure it was read correctly. Spring12 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
No no, you didn't upset me at all. (My skin is thick, and you didn't even scratch it.) I suppose I was saying that if I were to comment on the substance of what you wrote there, I'd disagree with some of it as strongly as SH had done -- but that this wasn't the place to get into an argument about it. I didn't mean to say that I agreed with SH's objections. (For one thing, I disagree with them.) AfD is usually a pretty horrible experience and it's unfortunate that one of "
your" articles was subjected to one so early. (A "PROD" notice is bad enough: example; defense.) Best wishes for editing other articles. -- Hoary (talk
) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Your opinions are requested
I would appreciate your opinions and contributions at an essay I am working on:
User:Chillum/Discrediting your opponent
. It is only a stub, but I think a significant essay can be written on the subject.
The more brains I have helping me the better I can get this concept across to people. More brains can also be a potent
What kind of idiot is that? I just fail to understand the point of it. It's hardly going to succeed in subverting the poll (I am in support, BTW, and it seems rougly 2 to 3 in the oppose camp) but I just can't think, I can imagine if it was destructive even, but it's just pointless. Sorry it just boggles my mind. Thanks for reverting, merrily. SimonTrew (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure of the thrust of what you're saying here, but I'll say that the would-be correction to my vote was surely well-intended, and that although I voted "oppose" (in quotation marks) I noticed more bizarreness and irrelevance among the oppose votes than among the support votes -- not that I can claim to have done more than skimread. ¶ Oh, you may wish to tweak your user page: you say that there are some words and phrases that I think are overly wordy or do not have the meaning intended, giving as one example "kids" used for "children". Surely only a pathologically blinkered pedant would say that "kids" are only for goats; almost always, the meaning of "kids" is perfectly clear in context and it's one syllable shorter than "children". I don't say that you should learn to love the word "kids" (I don't much like it myself), but you may wish to make some different complaint about it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh I was just grumbling really that I can't see the point of changing other's text, whichever side they're on. I'm glad you think it was in good faith.
Fair points about "kids"-- I especially hated it when Tony Blair was PM as he used it all the time and I just don't think it's appropriate in formal situations. I was doing some copy editing last night and was so tempted to change a table heading from (Adults + Kids) to (Adults + Children) but decided against it because the former was shorter and so mae the column a tad narrower-- I can have some restraint!
Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Me, I tend to think that when politicians talk of "kids" or "folks", or are seen consuming stuff from junk food megacorporations, or otherwise display "the common touch" in concentrated form, they're resorting to the populist mask in order to distract the gullible from an impending transfer of yet more money or other resources from the poor to the rich. -- Hoary (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Deletionists united? maybe not....
How'd you manage to keep yourself away from this little morsel you deletionist you? --KP Botany (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Damn, sorry I missed that one. But trust me, I've been deleting away in the meantime. I take seriously my responsibility to live down to my image. That aside, you've made me want to watch Prime Cut again. -- Hoary (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Good grief, you're the only other human being on the planet who's watched that movie besides me? I may need to visit your user page just thinking about that. PS Just to be clear, it's the thought of you watching it, not watching it, itself. That's a movie worth rewatching. --KP Botany (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it. I'm OK now, I'm embarrassed a little though. A typical J reaction in the 恥の文化 society? Oda Mari (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Putting aside the question of whether it's typical, I don't think it's merited. Yes, you broke an unusually harsh rule, but you broke it in the mildest and most inoffensive way imaginable, which I'd have thought would lead to a block of 12 hours or so at the harshest. ¶ After all, if we're to be martinets, I wonder what I as a newly trigger-happy admin should do about a recent edit such as this one. In fact I'm inclined to do nothing, not least because I tend to react mildly to people's eruptions on their own talk pages. Having thereby won myself space to erupt here, I'll say that the sabre-rattling and miscellaneous bloody-mindedness and stupidity surrounding these rocks generally repels me, but since xenophobes, the jackbooted far right and other political opportunists here in Japan like to make a big deal of the rocks, I hope South Korea takes them over completely. (If I were instead in South Korea, I might well hope that Japan would take them over completely.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Right-- as someone who spent years in South Korea, I can assure you the rhetoric and zeal over there over these pebbles is no less repellent :( The Korean film No. 3 has a very funny scene in which the Korean gang and the Japanese yakuza are meeting to join forces. A couple of the lower-tier thugs bring up whether the rocks should be called Dokdo or Takeshima and all hell breaks loose from there. Good to see that some people can laugh at the situation. Also, judging from the outburst on the blocking admin's page, s/he's probably experiencing a case of ethnic-rivalry-fatigue. I was raised with Japanese people & culture, and married into Korean, and have equal affection for both groups... so, obviously, I've been at that "a pox on both your houses" stage a few times myself :) Anyway, welcome back, Oda Mari! Dekkappai (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, 20 days have passed and no evidence has been presented so can you return the article's version to the featured status? Also, can you say something to Hobartimus so that he stops falsely accusing others and discriminating against IP users?--86.44.135.94 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Just to let you know there is a request at
WP:RPP to change the protection level on this article. I've asked them to come to you, as you protected it, but you may want to decline/respond to it there so the bot can clear it away. --GedUK
21:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. As I've said there and on its talk page, I think it should remain fully protected until an informed solution has been hammered out, whereupon it can be fully unprotected and confidently defended against the underinformed and those with one or other kind of historical grudge. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Your message was received and very appreciated. Sorry for my outburst as well. Good luck and hopefully I have made a wiki friend! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kramer84 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Sho' nuff! Alas it seems that I'll be very busy with "real life" for the next few months, but after that I'd be happy if we could work together on some article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Happy Hoary/Archive20's Day!
User:Hoary/Archive20 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Hoary/Archive20's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Hoary/Archive20!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see
User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk
• 00:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations Hoary! -
Mailer Diablo
05:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, thank you! How extraordinary ... I've done a bit in the past, but very little indeed in the last few weeks other than write disgruntled comments on talk pages. I can't help but wonder if there's been some mistake. Still, in the meantime, I'm chewing on resting on my laurels. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
War
You are wrong when you say the US is at war. Bush's stupid "War on Terror" slogan was just designed to scare the people and Congress into supporting his empire-building action in Iraq. No declaration of war was ever made. You could argue that it is a de facto war, but not that it is actually a war. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
US casualties in Iraq since the start of something that merits euphemism.Americans returning from something undeclared.Ah, you're referring to this. Well of course the very idea of a "War on Terror" was inane. (Surely it was influenced by the "War on Drugs".) And the al-Qaida–Iraq connection was a whopper too. The US sent many of its people to drop bombs on Iraq, and then to invade it, in what you're entirely free to call an "empire-building action", what it has I think called "Operation" this or that (none named quite as aptly as Operation Enduring Our Freedom to Bomb the Living Fuck out of You), but which most people call a "war". Of course the US didn't declare war: to have attempted to do so would have hindered the imperial presidency. As it is, you have a thoroughly modern war, much of which has, in the spirit of neoliberal "deregulation", bypassed the hurdles of democracy and been outsourced to "Blackwater" and other profit-making corporations.
Oh, maybe in some fairyland nothing is what it seems until its perpetrator declares that it's what it seems. Yes, perhaps we'll soon hear that the reason why "enhanced interrogation techniques" can't possibly constitute torture is that their practitioners never declared them to be torture. -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
See
1984 (novel) for background on this kind of wordplay. Gwen Gale (talk
) 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
...and Wikipedia:WikiSpeak for our own home-grown version... how about an RfC to cast !votes (which are not "votes" because we don't call them "votes", we call them "!votes") on whether a !war is a "war"? Dekkappai (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, hello Ppai -- I've just been writing something not unrelated to one of your favorite subjects. As for this "!war", spades and ducks come to mind. What would Wittgenstein have said? Would he have amended "The world is everything that is the case" to "The world is everything that its actors declare is the case"? Speech-acts have never been so potent. -- Hoary (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The Bard's rose's names too... I've got other interests, but just sort of drifted into that particular subject when I first came here. In fact this user name was meant as a one-time joke when I started an article on one particularly voluptuous lass. When I saw articles on many "notable" performers in that field up for deletion, I stepped in to help those damsels in distress, and before I knew it, I was the "Japanese porn guy". There are worse crosses to bear in life, I suppose... I might poke in to !vote in that AfD, whose existence, somehow, doesn't surprise me... Though I do hate politics with a passion... Dekkappai (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Barnstar of Integrity
You asked for an apology on my behalf due to a personal attack in Talk:Errol Sawyer, and I appreciate it! Mbinebritalk ← 15:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Look at Hoary -- always getting the barnstars! Hrumph. (^_^) J Readings (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well well I've got yet another one. It appears below. It's rather small so you might trip over it without noticing it. But even if it's small, it's perfectly formed. -- Hoary (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much Mbinebri. Um, if I were to point out that I asked for substantiation or retraction, and only suggested an apology, would you take your barmystar back? I do rather like it. -- Hoary (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Take back a barnstar? No way! Not to mention, it's the first ever given someone! Mbinebritalk ← 14:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar not deserved
Now I understand where you are both coming from. Did you read the book Invisible Man of Ralph Ellison because I was referring to that and not to Mbineri?1027E (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have read Invisible Man.
Here is your comment. It comes immediately after a (polite, informative) message by Mbinebri and it is written in the second person: You give me and other editors a lot of extra work to undo your random impulsive eruptions of hatred against the artist Errol Sawyer (my emphases). At the end of the paragraph, you write You should treasure every African-American artist that rises up to the level of an Errol Sawyer despite people who are racist and prefer him to be invisable. So you were complaining to Mbinebri and/or the world about the behavior and inferred mental state of Mbinebri and now, noticing the word "invisible", you are attempting to create your own fiction to explain away what you said.
Many people get angry on talk pages and later regret having written what they wrote. Certainly I have done that in my time. Many of these people add comments retracting what they have said, or strike it through. Some people just walk away and let it fester. A few attempt to lie about it. I suggest that you avoid lying and instead consider how best to retain some dignity. -- Hoary (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Snootery
Wow. Yup, you're a snoot alright (after having read the Garner link). Then grab hold of Fowler and go to work! I'll watch from the peanut gallery, attempting to boldy tame the crowd (hee hee, just kidding with the split inf). I hang out with a full-blown snoot. I love to throw out a variety of barbarisms in public when I'm with him, just to watch him squirm. Some favorites are "supposably", "irregardless", "agreeance", and the like. The truth is that I'm jealous. I'm too lazy, have too many hobbies, and dammit, I'm just not smart enough to be a snoot. Tparameter (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a trip to the liberry would help? Dekkappai (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I hear you. Me, I tend to say such things as "Hopefully the new pamphlet will be better than last year's" when in the earshot of some old fart (of any age) who takes seriously the strictures of dopey "language mavens": I just like to watch the self-righteous quiver with rage. If you liked the Garner link, try the same author's richly deserved demolition of "Strunk and White". -- Hoary (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow. I like that Strunk and White critique. It was brutal, but honest. Good one. Tparameter (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Another barnstar
The Minor Barnstar
While the changes you made on John Frusciante today were minor, they demonstrated your passion for verbage (my dad's chiding word, referring to verbal and garbage). Because your deep concern about quality of text featured on the mainpage every day is a major asset to the pedia, I award you this minor, but not unimportant, barnstar. BusterD (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh that's terribly decent of you, Buster old chap. I'd been hankering after a nose stud and this is just what the otorhinolaryngologist ordered. I learned the other day that there's no internal locking mechanism and I infer that they can pop out when you sneeze; I promise to be careful with this new bauble. -- Hoary (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
They're sharp, too. BusterD (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Word of the Day
The Merriam-Webster Word of the Day for May 3, 2009 is "hoary." Few among us will share this honor. Fg2 (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Crumbs. And posterity can view it here, we're told. But thank you for the heads-up during the big day! -- Hoary (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the message
Thanks for the message. I will move my message to his talk page now. Thanks.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Newross (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that I've ever contributed to the article on this ultimate non-event, but thank you for the heads-up all the same. -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Image permission problem with Image:Tollemache-for-our-times.png
Image Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading Image:Tollemache-for-our-times.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the
this list
) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
here
.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].
If you believe the media meets the criteria at
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that this has been fixed (OTRS link). -- Hoary (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Very likely so, yes. (Jeez, do we have to go through all that rigmarole in order to deal with this latest name for an, er, "problematic user"? He's got "Multiplyperfect" written all over him; I'd have thought that would be enough.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Parodies of Sarah Palin
Hoary, I see that you reverted my edits that you referred to on my talk page. Thats fine, as always, Im
bold
but willing to discuss. My feeling was that because public image of SP is not an article about parodies, it doesnt make sense to to leave a link in various parody articles pointing back to Public Image. Additionally, as you can see from the redirect for deletion discussion, I was driven by a misguided effort to remove the redirect as clutter, an effort which I stopped once it became clear to me that redirects are actually desirable. If you find that answer implausible, so be it.
As for your representation of the AfD or what it means, I disagree with your implication that that discussion was anything other than a referendum on POV fork, not content. I said I felt the article was a POV fork at the onset, and that was the gist of the discussion, as you know. It is entirely incorrect to represent the lack of discussion of the contents of the article as implicit approval, it was not. Bonewah (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Minor controversy...
Hi, Hoary. I'm involved in a minor controversy over at Battles Without Honor and Humanity, and one in which I'm not entirely sure I'm on the right side... The lead mentions in passing that the author of the novel, Koichi Iiboshi (飯干晃一) had once been a yakuza. This is "reliably sourced" to the book Outlaw Masters of Japanese Film by Chris D. and to a direct quote from Fukasaku Kinji in that book. An editor says this is not true and has removed it twice. I suspect the editor is Japanese, and that he is correct, but the problem is we have a "reliable source" that says otherwise... (My opinion of Chris D.'s authority is shaky, but he's all over the place in commentary on Japanese films, and published.) I've reverted and attributed the yakuza claim directly to the book, but I'm not comfortable doing so. I've looked at the Japanese Wiki article on Iiboshi, and it says he went to Tokyo Daigaku, and graduated Kyoto University, not exactly impeccable yakuza credentials. The problem is-- as often at Ja-Wiki-- that article is unsourced... Can you point to any reliable sourcing so that we can counter this mistake in the English book? Or at least stop me from "edit warring" to version I suspect is wrong? :) Dekkappai (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Block of Donadio
This seems like a complete misunderstanding (whatever other crimes Donadio may be guilty of). See my comments on Donadio's talk page. Peter Damian (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
PS I like your "Please don't post a generic smile, "wikilove" or similar template here." Peter Damian (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. (See my comments on Rlevse's talk page.) Thank you for alerting me to this; I wouldn't have noticed it otherwise. -- Hoary (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
But then you refused to unblock him because you are "alarmed by the very clear indication that you want to continue your feud with him." So is he now blocked because he intends to continue a feud, or because of alleged racist comments? If not the latter, why does the original block notice talk about racist comments? Peter Damian (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you undo these moves? This article is about execution by elephant, not about execution by crushing, and, for some reason they can't be reverted. No discussion, no appropriate additions, nothing, just unilaterally moved an article about a very specific topic to a more general topic. Execution by elephant. I'm in the midst of finals. --KP Botany (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, apparently it can just be moved back. I did that. --KP Botany (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
comment
Thanks for the comment at ANI. DGG (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure! -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Recommendations
Hi Hoary. I've recently had a couple impressive viewing experiences-- (movies, I mean)-- and as I recall, you are also a bit of a connoisseur of the cinematically unusual. First-- the 1998 restoration of Welles'
It's a long time since I've seen Touch of Evil but of course I enjoyed it. Though really, Welles the actor strains my patience a lot in this film. (A contrast with The Lady from Shanghai, an even more enjoyable film and one in which his odd attempt at an Irish brogue doesn't worry me at all.) Thank you for the link to The Housemaid, which I hope to watch soon. -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
You don't enjoy Welles-as-human-garbage-heap? Nothing against Lady from Shanghai, but I saw it fairly recently, and I think I favor the garbage pile to the brogue. Though it could have been my mood too-- I was sipping some good scotch while watching Evil. Stone-cold sober last time I saw Lady, I believe... Marlene Dietrich has all the best lines in Touch of Evil though: "Better lay off of them candy bars... your future's all used up... He was some kind of man. What does it matter what you say about people?" I come nowhere near creating the smoky atmosphere that Dietrich did, of course. Dekkappai (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
White Brazilian
Hello, Hoary. This is Donadio. If it's not abusing your patience, can I ask you please to take a look at the ongoing discussion at
White Brazilian and make some comments about procedure? Thanks in advance. Donadio (talk
Thank you very much, Hoary. You have been absolutely fantastic in that discussion. I hope you can find the time (and energy) to continue helping on those articles. Donadio (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Unsourced information in German Brazilians; Fact Tags removed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Hoary. I respect your opinion, so I would appreciate you taking a look at this very short article that I stumbled upon. Based on the evidence so far provided and Wikipedia's notability criteria, do you consider the subject notable? I'm not sure what to think, so I would like to solicit some more opinions from established and respected members of the community. J Readings (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
How about a bit of full disclosure here, Readings? I don't think that you 'stumbled upon' the Perigo page at all, given that you are participating[3] in a thread on a site run by Perigo, and are engaging him in (polite) argument. It is my suspicion that you are attempting to have Perigo's page deleted for personal reasons. -- Duncan bayne (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it's certainly true that I never heard of Lindsay Perigo before the other week. Like most of these internet discussions, I came across the SOLO website (and by extension the name Lindsay Perigo) after being linked to it by another site which linked to another site which ultimately linked back to Wikipedia with respect to the IP 160 discussion on my colleague EdJohnston's talk page. And yes, it's also true that I made (in retrospect the silly mistake) of bothering to clarify why the IP 160 topic ban was filed on Wikipedia and my role in its filing. Apparently, we live in learn: it is a mistake to participate on those fora (even to make seemingly productive clarifications) for any reason; the general atmosphere generated on that site's thread is not welcoming, let alone professional (I don't know what other word to use in describing it). I hope that clarifies things. J Readings (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Uh . . . his main achievement seems to be founding and running a political party that never got more than 0.3% of the vote (NB even in a system of proportional representation) in a nation with the population of Kentucky. He's the subject of a bio, but this is written by another bigwig within this picayune party, and published by his own employer, a station of "talkback" radio that's heavily into horse-racing. And they -- him, his biographer, his radio station, his little political party -- all have articles. Seems very walledgardeny to me. On the other hand he's an "objectivist", and "objectivist" philosophasters seem to get fanatical support in some WP circles; the articles aren't that bad in their NN way; and somehow I imagine that my learned friend DGG would vote "keep" for the lot. -- Hoary (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I checked various databases only to find myself wondering if there could be anything added that's more mainstream. After pouring over JSTOR, Google Scholar, Google Books, Factiva, LexisNexis and Google News, I confirmed the existence of this bio and one other article about Perigo in a small English-language newspaper. That was it. Does that constitute "significant" coverage for an stand alone Wikipedia article? Hmmm....I don't know. I guess it depends on how one defines "significant", right? J Readings (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yup. AfD it, and somebody will pipe up to say that a booklength bio constitutes evidence of notability. To which I'd respond that a bio published by
Lutterworth or Butterworth is one thing, a bio published and written by other features of your walled garden is another. Energy permitting, I'd send the lot to AfD. -- Hoary (talk
) 13:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Up-front disclaimer: I'm a fan of Perigo's, and was a member of the aforementioned political party (the Libertarianz). That said, I think that Perigo's page does meet the notability criteria, specifically "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." As his page says, Perigo " ...was considered Radio New Zealand’s, then Television New Zealand’s, foremost political interviewer" during the 1980s and 1990s. He was one of the mainstays of television news in New Zealand for over a decade. -- Duncan bayne (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinion. No worries about being a fan of Perigo. So, if I understand you correctly, you think he might meet one of the notability criteria as an "Entertainer" rather than the standard biography, "politician" or "creative professional." I could see how that might work. One of the criteria requires demonstration of a "significant role" in television. Otherwise, one needs to demonstrate that he has a "significant cult" following. And again, we're back to this issue of "significance." I haven't made up my mind what to think about this article. Hoary might be right. J Readings (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Significance aside, statements that he was the foremost (or even a prominent) this or that have to be reliably sourced (see
peacock terms or at least bordering on being peacock terms. If they're verifiable in independent third-party sources, the article wouldn't have stood out so much as being one big question mark. J Readings (talk
) 03:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough; being of New Zealand upbringing I sort of assume that everyone my age knew Perigo as the face of TVNZ news. I guess not all Wikipedia readers live in New Zealand ;-) I'll see what can be found in terms of third-party sources. -- Duncan bayne (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the claims as they are really quite extravagant to have without sourcing. Feel free to add them back in with sources. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please continue the discussion at Lindsay Perigo or some other place that seems appropriate, rather than here. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
No need for that. The information is sourced. If the other editor is removing a sourced information because he deslikes it (or wants to hide it), and creating an useless edit-war, he should be blocked because of that, like he was blocked several times last months because of disruptions. Opinoso (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I have protected the article. I'll comment on that on its talk page. I shall not make personal comments there. However, since personal matters have been raised on this, my personal talk page, I'll make one brief personal observation here. Yes, Donadio has indeed been blocked several times for disruption and edit-warring. Opinoso has also been blocked several times, for these and also for personal attacks. My patience is being stretched here. Stretch it a little more, and I might block again for persistent claims/innuendo about an alleged political or other desire to hide this or that. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Hoary.
I have mistakenly posted a paragraph that was intended to
Talk:White Brazilian. Could you please move it to the right place, or can I do it myself? Donadio (talk
) 02:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Better would be to note under my response that you posted it there by mistake, and turn off the computer (if it's as late where you are as I guess it is), coolly plan a constructive rewrite to your sandbox in T:GB, and post it there after a good night's sleep and some rethinking. -- Hoary (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
What should be "sources" for the lyrics of a song? Something like [5] and [6]?
Sincerely, if your patience is being stretched, so is mine. I'm trying to do things like I am told, but, really, when it seems something is on its way to resolution, a new problem appears. About things like the spelling of two words in a popular song's lyrics.
Thank your for your help. Donadio (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Protected. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Policy for placing/removing pictures
Hoary, I am not personally interested in either placing or removing pictures from the articles. However, I do see some edit warring on them. Is there some guideline for that? Ninguém (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Does this or this say anything useful? -- Hoary (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I fear not. I am actually talking about things like [7] and [8]. Can one remove a picture just out of political or aesthetical considerations? Ninguém (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
You raise reasonable questions, and do so in a reasonable way.
I'm sorry, I don't want to investigate this one; I simply don't have enough time. Worse, I don't know where you are supposed to ask. If I understand correctly, the best way (in theory) is via an RFC, but in practice that's very laborious. So I suggest that you ask another experienced editor. If you do so, feel free to link to this message of mine.
Now, could you please attend to the citation, etc., in your "German Brazilian" sandbox? If the other editor doesn't want to edit his, that's his problem; you should do the best job possible in yours. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, thank you. I know I have been abusing your patience. It's that you are the only reasonable admin I have found who was willing to actually try to understand the problems I have been facing, and so I tend to recur to you.
I think I am not a very "graphic" person; I tend to focus in text, not in pictures. In fact, I think I never added or removed any picture in Wikipedia. But sometimes I do see things that strike me as unjust being done to other editors, out of apparently no valid reason. That's why I have brought these edits into question.
I am having some real life troubles that have been delaying my editing here. That's the reason I haven't advanced the discussion in "German Brazilian" as much as I would have liked. It is also sometimes difficult to source the obvious, or to substantiate a negative claim (for instance, how do I source the information that there was no "torture penalty" under Vargas' dictatorship? Can I merely place a link to the 1937 "Constitution" (or the Penal Code) and leave the reader with the trouble of reading everything?)
Again thank you, Ninguém (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
No, don't worry yet about torture. How about this? (About half of Lutheran ministers of the Sínodo Riograndense were members of the Nazi party.<ref>René Gertz, ''O Estado Novo no Rio Grande do Sul'' (Passo Fundo: EdiUPF, 2005); as summarized by Mario Maestri, "A inesperada reabilitação de Getúlio Vargas", ''Revista Espaço Acadêmico,'' no. 62 (July 2006; also available [http://www.espacoacademico.com.br/062/62res_maestri.htm here]).</ref>) -- Hoary (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually trying to find Gertz's text online, which I think would be considerably better. If I can't, I'm going to use your proposal. Thank you! Ninguém (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Relevance
Also, can you please help me in discussing and solving problems of relevance? As of now, the article on
Hunsrückisch makes assertions on the existence of a "German-Brazilian identity" and about English being taught as a second language in Rio Grande do Sul, that seem quite misplaced there. To my surprise, my attempt to remove these irrelevant informations was met with immediate reversal. Ninguém (talk
) 12:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Hoary. Ninguém (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You were entirely right to remove this (unsourced) peripheral material from this (entirely unsourced) section of the article. I've left a warning on the editor's page. -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not bizarre
There's nothing bizarre about my reversion. Actually, the entire
Hunsrückisch article is unsourced and to remove an information saying it is not "sourced" cannot be applied in an enterely unsourced article. Moreover, the information about the "German identity" is important, even if not sourced, because if a person born in Brazil keeps speaking German rather than adopt the Portuguese language spoken by the vast majority, this person is, somehow, keeping a "German identity". The language that a person speaks is one of the most important elements of his/her identity. The important information was removed, along with the information about English, which actually has nothing to do with the article. However, the other editor likes to remove important and not important informations all together, making it impossible for someone to know if the all the informations are important or not. Opinoso (talk
) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You're referring to this edit of yours, which I reverted and called bizarre on your talk page.
Your edit undid the combination of this edit and this one, summarized as Unrelated sentence. Article is about Hunsruekisch, not about education in Rio Grande do Sul. and Unrelated sentence. Article is about Hunsruekisch, not about ethnic identities in Southern Brazil. Those edit summaries say nothing about lack of sourcing; they are informative and accurate, and they provide a good reason for the removal. Your own edit summary for reinstating this material reads Undid suppression of informations. There's no "suppression"; it's instead removal of peripheral material that arguably merits inclusion in what's conspicuously announced as the main article on the subject,
Riograndenser Hunsrückisch
.
Indeed, now that I reexamine this part of
Hunsrückisch, I see that the abridgement was far too mild, and I have removed more. -- Hoary (talk
) 00:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if it is wise for me to intervene in this discussion, but, caution apart, I would like to comment on this:
the other editor likes to remove important and not important informations all together, making it impossible for someone to know if the all the informations are important or not. (Opinoso)
In fact, I made three distincts edits here. It was not only possible, but even easier, to undo just one of them than to undo all. So the the readdition of the information on English teaching in Rio Grande do Sul cannot be due to the difficulty of separating it from the rest. Ninguém (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Those discussions never ends
About the
German Brazilian discussion, it will never come to an end. Each day, the other editor opens a new discussion, usually saying a "source is not reliable" when he does not agree with the sourced information. My informations are all sourced and if another editor thinks my source is not reliable, I will say it is, and it'll never come to an end. The source about the Germans being tortured comes from the Gazeta do Povo, which is one of the most importants newspapers from the state of Paraná. And more: the informations there are based on the book Os Soldados Alemães de Vargas, which is a historic book, which had notability in Brazil, and it talks about the people of German descent being forced to fight in World War II (and the trauma they had because of this) and also about the persecution Germans faced in Brazil. Opinoso (talk
) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Then say this at
Talk:German Brazilian
.
If you say a source is reliable and another editor says it is not, that's not the end of the matter. You give the reasons for saying that it is reliable and the other editor gives his reasons for saying that it is not reliable, and you argue from there.
I have already told the other editor that if he wants to dismiss a source as unreliable (let alone "totally uninformed and biased") he has to argue this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Manipulation of sources
However, the other editor, as usuall, likes to do original resources, and thinks his theories are more reliable than sources based on newspapers or books. Since nobody here speaks Portuguese, and most sources about this subject are in Portuguese, he takes this weakness to claim sources are not "reliable" and to sell his theories, usually erasing informations he deslikes. I already had months of discussion with the other user, and I got tired of it. My contributions for Wikipedia are being impaired, because each day I logg in there are a lot of discussions going on, making it impossible for me to keep writing in articles, because I am forced to participate in in usuless discussion with the other editor, which will never come to an end, because each day a new bizarre discussion is opened by him. Opinoso (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not read Portuguese (and have never pretended otherwise). The huge majority of editors here do not read Portuguese. A significant number do read Portuguese.
If you are sick of discussing matters of Brazilian ethnicity, I can assure you that I am too. So please stick to discussing the issues at
Talk:German Brazilian, and elsewhere making changes that are not controversial. This is what I've asked the other editor to do. When those are sorted out one way or another, move on. -- Hoary (talk
) 00:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that the other editor always "find" a "controversy" in several articles of Wikipedia (curiously, only in the ones that I recently posted). I can discuss a problem now, but tomorrow he will find another way to open a new discussion. Like I said before, it has no ending. He is using Wikipedia for discussions, and I was the one elected to make part of all those discussions. There are millions of unsourced articles in Wikipedia where he can open discussions with other users, but he only opens discussions in articles I am involved. It makes me tired. Opinoso (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not at all convinced that he is stalking you. However, there does seem to be some appearance of stalking. So is he stalking you or isn't he? Ask yourself this as coolly as possible. If you coolly conclude that yes he is stalking you, post a short, persuasive complaint at the appropriate place (perhaps
Talk:German Brazilian
.
If you do post a complaint at WP:AN/I or elsewhere, let me know. I will not necessarily agree with what you say, but (time permitting) I will defend your right to post a complaint (concisely, persuasively and politely) against the kind of silly comment ("Why don't both of you just kiss and make up?" etc) that your and his complaints were getting some weeks ago. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Following me edits
And, "curiously", the other editor only starts a discussion in articles that I have recently edit, because he wants to force me to discuss with him and to start new edit-warrings or disruptions. And that's because he uses Wikipedia for discussion, as a Forum (which is not allowed), like this one, which is bizarre he started a discussion about nationality which has nothing to do with the article (typicall Forum discussion) "new discussion"[9] in an article that I have recently edit (what a surprise).
The other user follows my edits, and he only edits in articles that I have recently edited (
Hunsrückisch, now even in Domingos Jorge Velho). Why should I discuss with an user who follows my edits only to start a new disruption? Why should I discuss with an user who was blocked several times last months for the same kind of disruption? Why should I discuss with an user who do this kind of thing: [10][11][12]
(I still do not know why he was not infinitely blocked after this behaviour).
I ask you to tell the other user to stop opening everyday my "contributions page" and following my edits. Could you tell him to follow edits is not allowed, and that there are several other articles in Wikipedia? Opinoso (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's look at the article you bring up in the first paragraph. This edit of yours is sensible and well described. This edit by the other editor acknowledges that you are right and asks a question. This edit by the other editor is entirely legitimate. This response by you fixes the problem but has an unnecessarily truculent summary. Where's the beef? It seems to me that the other editor has here encouraged you to improve the article here and there, without criticizing your work in any way. -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not see it this way. For me, the "fact tag" was a way to open a brand new edit-war and a brand new discussion in that talk page. The fact that Domingos Jorge Velho could barely speak Portuguese is widely known, like most of the Bandeirantes from São Paulo at that time, because they spoke indigenos languages. The information was not sourced, and anybody could include a "fact tag" there. However, the editor knows that I was the one who recently edited there and spite of include a "fact tag", he could source the information in google. Even though I got the information from a book, I also looked in google and there are different websites that say that Velho did not speak Portuguese or that he could barely speak it. I mean, why to include a fact tag in an article that I recently edited, after an information that has several sources? If he was really interested in the quality of the article, he would look for a source (that he would easily find) before posting a "fact tag". Opinoso (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
This kind of thing can indeed be irritating. But look, he added one fact tag, not ten; and his question was a simple question, and not a complaint or insinuation of any kind. You seem overly sensitive here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
And now your second paragraph. In each of these three edits the other editor makes a change with the summary Reversing all my edits, since I don't want to be associated to Wikipedia in any way. I presume that he was in a very bad mood at the time. Whatever he was doing, he doesn't seem to be attacking you. It hardly seems to merit a block, though if he kept doing it it might. (It's not uncommon for people to be so pissed off with Wikipedia that they announce that they are leaving it for good; one common way to do this is in a blaze of "expletives", telling people what they should do with their body parts. That does usually bring a block, but rarely an indefinite block.) Anyway, those edits of his were made back in February. Should I now dig through your edits of February? -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
He said he was leaving Wikipedia after he got blocked for following my edits and disrupting articles that I recently edited. Then he disappered, now he's back again, once again forcing me to discuss with him and, what a surprise, following my edits. Why can't he open discussion in other articles and discuss if a source is reliable or not in other articles? I do not want the ownership of articles, but it's strange if an editor only appears in articles that another one recently edited. Opinoso (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
He disagrees with you, you disagree with him. Edit wars are silly and they're also against the rules. Since neither of you shows any sign of wanting to leave articles such as
German Brazilian alone, I am attempting to force you both to examine the competing evidence (and the differences between you) on their talk pages. That's one way of approaching it. The other way is, I suppose, to let this escalate to an "RfAr" on the behavior of both of you. Such circuses -- take a look at them here, where they are merely starting up -- waste an enormous amount of time and at the end they leave historical and other issues unresolved. (Incidentally, if it does come to arbitration, I am unlikely to participate.) -- Hoary (talk
) 03:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Why I left the discussions
I am since December being forced to "discuss" with the other editor, because he only edits in articles that I recently edited. It's not me who is "edit-warring" with him, like someone else may think. It's the user who follows my edits. I decided not to "feed" the other user anymore, because if I keeping "discussing", next Christmas I know I will still be "discussing" the same issues in the article
German Brazilian
or in another one. I have no time for that. I have better things to do here in Wikipedia, like learning when reading a new article, or contributing to others. I do not want to read that a source from a notable newspaper from Paraná or from a notable book is not "reliable", because another editor wants to hide or omitte some not beautiful informations.
The other user is since the beggining trying to make somebody block me, because he wants to be free to erase sourced informations, to sell his biased personal theories, to "Portuguese-wash" articles about Brazilians. Since I'm so tired of this, I decided to leave the discussions. I don't know why he choose me to be the one to discuss with him, but there are many other users in Wikipedia that can replace me there. Opinoso (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is not with you
I know that you are trying to help, but this is not only a content problem. The other user is obssessed with me, spends hours a day following my edits and finding a way to open a new "discussion". I do not want to make part of those discussions, even though he tries to force me to be there. It's not a matter of me trying to have the ownership of those articles, but if an user only edits in the same articles I do, there's something going on. Again, I'm out of those discussions. But, if I notice the other user is manipulating sources because people do not speak Portuguese, or is selling his personal theories, usually pro-Portuguese theories, I won't let this kind of thing happen. Opinoso (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
weird behaviour by IP
Hoary, could you please check this IP: 201.15.138.116? Ninguém (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
He's made two edits. Both are disagreeable but minor. One was fixed well by you. The other was reversed by another IP who mischaracterized it as "vandalism". This all seems pretty trivial; am I overlooking something?
That matter aside: In "
Version N", can I not interest you in either (a) adding ISBNs to books or (b) formatting links to Google so that they are immediately understandable and don't force sideways scrolling? -- Hoary (talk
) 00:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, I am trying to improve Version N. It's not always easy, and I don't always find the better way to source things. I don't think I actually know how to format links to Google in order to avoid sideways scrolling. As for ISBNs, I am trying to find sources accessible online, preferably to pointing to offline sources. Am I wrong?
I am also having less time to edit in a more detailed and profound way; real life sometimes needs to have precedence.
As for the IP, he has made two edits. Both seem to continue other IP edits, namely 201.10.43.98 and 201.35.133.68, which have surfaced in this context: [13]. I hope you will understand that I find it necessary to put them biggest distance between myself and such things.
I hadn't seen the reversion of the other edit. Mischaracterizations of others' edits as vandalism is not something new in this context. I have actually complained about that in my talk page during the discussion of my unfair block.
Thank you for your time and patience. Ninguém (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, you caught me at my sleepiest and grumpiest. My own "real life" is surreally busy so I sympathize with your plight.
As I understand it, you're in a long-term disagreement with Opinoso; and at times IPs pop up to make edits that disagree with Opinoso and that might appear to be compatible with your position, but from whose content or tone you want to disassociate yourself, and against which you may want to defend Opinoso. I think your intentions are good, but I simply lack the energy to look into all of this, and even when I do have lots of time I have to accept that both IPs and registered users are going to make bad edits with insulting summaries. If the IP is stable, I can do something; if it isn't, there's nothing much that can be done short of semi-protecting the article, which is not something that people rush to do.
When you're pretty happy with the "N" version, let me know. Then, IFF you like, I'll try tinkering with it -- not the factual assertions within it, but their expression.
Simple matters: (i) If you're certain that one or other ISBN is correct for a book, please add it. The method is incredibly simple: "ISBN" followed by one space and the numbers. (Example:
ISBN 0140297863. Note that no "[" or "]" is needed.) Click on the link in order to see how useful it is. (ii) When you have an external link of any length (very short or grotesquely long), format it as [http://blahblahblah title]. If it's a book at Google Books, I'd generally write something like Author, ''Title'' (Place: Publisher, Year; ISBN number); also available [http://blahblahblah here] at Google Books. -- Hoary (talk
) 07:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again, Hoary. Your summary of my problem with such edits is more precise and concise than I would have possibly made it.
personal comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been struggling against Opinoso for my right to edit Wikipedia for half an year now. His behaviour has ranged from endless rants full of personal attacks to misinterpreting sources as saying the exact opposite of what they actually say; and from using sockpuppets to win edit wars to actual criminal (I mean, actually punishable by the Penal Code of the Brazilian State) behaviour like publicly and falsely accusing me of racism. It is even funny at times, as when he regards Darcy Ribeiro - a Brazilian nationalist and a Varguista - as the end all be all of Brazilian anthropology, and then goes on to accuse me of being a supporter of Vargas' dictatorship. I have been trying to be as patient as possible, and to comply as much as possible with the directions given by you and Gwen Gale. It is not always easy; at times I actually wish I could find the kind of irresponsible and incompetent administrator that Opinoso seems able to motivate to defend his awful article ownership, and simply get him blocked for good as he has been in the Portuguese Wikipedia.
I am sorry for this rant; I know that nothing of this is your fault, and, in the contrary, your intervention in this issue has been extremely useful and precise. In fact, if there were more admins like you (which unhappily seems to be untrue), Wikipedia might be a viable project. There are, frankly, times when I think the best I could do would be to quit Wikipedia for good, and start trying to undermine its credibility elsewhere. If I haven't, it is mainly your merit.
As for Version N, I'm still unhappy with it. First, there is this recurrent myth that Vargas forbade "all manifestations of German culture". While this assertion can be "sourced", ie, there actually are people stupid enough to put this into writing and publish it in the internet or in paper, this is clearly an absurd. I would like to find sources that explicitly deny this, but it obviously isn't easy.
There evidently was intervention against German-owned companies in Brazil during Vargas dictatorship. I am trying to establish what actually happened, which involves trying to understand why Renner apparently had no bigger problems than no longer being able to actively discriminate against non-Germans in their employment policies (which, yes, they used to do), while Hering had to suffer replacement of its manager and board (and why Curt Hering was someone that could not be allowed to manage his own company, but and individual named Roberto Grossenbacher was considered apt to manage it in his place; apparently it hasn't to do with Hering being of German descent, or Grossenbacher wouldn't qualify also). Also, I would like to present a better picture of the legal measures taken by Vargas against the minority of German descent. This isn't easy; the Brazilian Senate has a collection of Brazilian legislation, but searching it is not really easy and my feeling is it is incomplete. I would really like to present a decree that forbade the use of German and established penalties against it use, to definitely put to rest the lie that there was a "torture penalty". But so far I found two, that forbade it but said nothing about penalties. I have referred to them in the article ([14]), but the edit was summarily erased as usual ([15]), including the unaccurate and offencive edit summary.
I would also like to write something about the participation of "German Brazilians" in the Brazilian Army and especially its campaign against the Wehrmacht in Northern Italy. Up to now, there is something quite disagreeable about what the article has to say about it. If "German Brazilians" had to enlist and fight like everybody else, that's an horror, because, poor them, they would have to shoot at other Germans. If not, the horror, they were discriminated, they could not even have a military carreer.
The general tone of the article is awful, too. It projects XXI centurally mores into WWII times, when nobody actually cared about multiculturalism and ethnic minorities rights (not even in established democracies as the US and the UK); it treats the mistreatment of German nationals and "German Brazilians" by Vargas' dictatorship as a completely isolated phenomenon - when in fact, in this particular issue, Vargas' dictatorship does not compare unfavourably to Roosevelt's democracy. It goes to length in denying the existence of a "German danger" as it was perceived and denounced by Brazilian nationalists (and government) at the time; but then it wants us to consider perfectly natural and acceptable that part of the Brazilian populace considered itself German (and Germans ethnically superior to other "races"). I would like to change that. Unhappily, it is not easy, nor it can be done in a few minutes. It would probably take a few months, even if there wasn't the intent, by other editors, to keep it as it is.
So I am going to have to ask you for some patience, perhaps more than it is reasonable to demand. Ninguém (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The one place above where you severely strain my patience is where you make accusations about another editor. Complaints are welcome here as long as they're about content, about me, or about specific actions by anyone. If there are more such complaints here, I shall not hide them (as I've most unusually done above) but instead shall delete them together with anything else posted by the same person.
As for your other points, I'll respond to some a little later. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
This has been a very long day and I shall therefore address just one point.
You say above: I have referred to them in the article (link), but the edit was summarily erased as usual (link), including the unaccurate and offencive edit summary (with my addition of the word "link", twice).
The first edit seems informative. However, its summary reads Correcting sensationalist claims with reliable sources (Brazilian legal texts). But this itself strikes me as controversial. Brazil was an authoritarian country, and in such countries the letter of the law is not always adhered to. Brazilian legal texts may be excellent sources for the letter of the Brazilian law but they are not obviously the best sources for what the police and others were actually doing. Further, what you were altering and added to may or may not have been sensationalist but you should know very well that this word is likely to anger your opponent. Whether or not the claims were sensationalist, all you needed to say is that they lacked reliable sources.
The second edit indeed has an inaccurate edit summary. But I don't see it as offensive. Perhaps you were indeed offended; if you were, I think you'd also be offended by an insinuation that you had inserted sensationalist claims. Let's not have double standards here.
Now let's look at your sources in that edit of yours. Here's one footnote:
Now please return to that sandbox. I'm not interested in claims for which there surely ought to be evidence even if that evidence can't be found. Just use the best information that you do have, and use it very scrupulously. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, I don' think I am going back to the sandbox.
My patience has a limit. I am working for free - in fact, for a loss. This is something I don't usually do. It is not something I like to do. And it is only possible if I believe my work is able to change something for the common good. This seems to be not the case with Wikipedia. And consequently, I am no longer tempted to waste my time trying to correct its mistakes, or improve its articles. There are better things to do with my time.
I am sorry for having abused your patience and wasted your time. Have a good time, and good luck in your endeavours. Ninguém (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to read this, because I thought that the sandbox was moving toward what looked to me (unable to read Portuguese) an informative state. Even if it was "two steps forward, one step back" and I clobbered the one step back, it was improving. And actually it wasn't two forward one back; more like three forward one back. So I hope that you return to the sandbox, perhaps after a week-long break. -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
As I have explained, I don't want to be associated with Wikipedia. Opinoso's edit here is just plain useless and noxious. And can you please explain him, for the 298,320,983,280th time, what is vandalism, so that he stops misusing the word?
Thank you. Ninguém (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, Gwen Gale did it. Thanks anyway. Ninguém (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Having problem with user Opinoso
Good afternoon! I hope I am not being intrusive, but I´d like to request for your help in a matter. I have recently done a few harmless edits in the article
Military of the Empire of Brazil and many others were written, organized and edited almost exclusively by me. What I´m trying to tell is that I am very careful in what I do. Anyway, thank you for your time. - --Lecen (talk
) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I am very busy outside Wikipedia, and I am very tired of complaints (whether baseless or justified) about other people's edits concerning "race" and ethnic identities in Brazil.
So no.
You should coolly decide what the core issue is, and then coolly take it up at the appropriate place. I'd warn you that describing yourself (however justifiably) as a longterm and energetic contributor is likely to be much less effective than a demonstration of your maturity and cooperative nature. You'll achieve the latter by (i) conciseness, (ii) provision of diffs, (iii) avoidance of speculation about others' motives, (iv) avoidance of hyperbole. (Of course it's difficult to square the first of these with the second; do your best.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
My intention was not to praise myself. All I wanted to say was that everything I do is with great care and if I had to come here to ask for your help it was because I saw no other way out. The user Opinoso is constantly getting into trouble with other users and is quite hard to work serious when there is someone like him around. Anyway, thank you for your attention. - --Lecen (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I take all of your points. And I appreciate the thought behind entrusting this to me.
I'm sorry, but I really am too busy. (My contributions history will show that I have recently made very few edits to the subjects that most interest me.)
It may not be a good idea to ask somebody specific for help (in the way that you asked me). If the dispute later escalates, your adversary may then claim that you asked the specific person because you have a particular point of view and had reason to think that person would be receptive to it. (NB I'm not criticizing the way you asked me, just saying it has a downside.) It's better to ask in a forum that people of any (real or imagined) point of view are equally likely to read.
You may also wish to see
this and create and work on your own "Version L". (Start by pasting in from whichever version you like more [or dislike less], and then work ont that.) As you'll see, one other editor started but lost patience and the other didn't even start. -- Hoary (talk
) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello there! My intention was not to force some point of view, because there isn´t any. I haven´t written anything at all in that article. All I done was to put a few pictures to illustrate. That´s not even the problem, but the way the User Opinoso acts around: he is always threatening and at the same time accusing other users of actions that they didn´t commit (like personnal attacks). But worse of all is that he acts like he owns the articles that he is/was involved somehow. But don´t worry, forget about it. I don´t even bother with that article, anyway.
My focus are on the articles about the Empire of Brazil. If you want to exchange thoughts about this period of the Brazilian history, you´re welcome!
About why I went after you to ask help about Opinoso the truth is that I saw that you already had met him so I believed you already understood the matter. But as said, forget it. There are so many complaining about him that it´s a matter of time until things get ugly at his side. Anyway, thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think I do understand the matter. But unfortunately my time is limited. -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC_on_lead_image_alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk
) 03:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Joseph Priestley lead image alignment
You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Imposture
Your external link: Oh ... my ... god. PS Online academic journals are coming to our neighbourhood very very soon—apparently the better ones will make the transition and you'll pay to be published (that is, your university will redirect its current library budget for buying dead-tree journals, plus more, into departmental funds for such publications). The mediocre journals will continue to kill innocent trees. Tony(talk) 16:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Belated answer...
Hoary, a week ago you posted the following:
I'm sorry to read this, because I thought that the sandbox was moving toward what looked to me (unable to read Portuguese) an informative state. Even if it was "two steps forward, one step back" and I clobbered the one step back, it was improving. And actually it wasn't two forward one back; more like three forward one back. So I hope that you return to the sandbox, perhaps after a week-long break.
So I think that, a week later, I should explain why it is unlikely that I am going to the sandbox.
I am sorry, but I am not going to "improve" an article that states that there was a "torture penalty". I would be only giving credibility for that lie. That it is a falsety is indeed recognised by the editor who introduced it:
It seems somebody is trying to deny the fact that Germans in Brazil were obliged to stop speaking their mother tongue and that many of them were arrested and even torture because of this. Yes, Brazilian Republican law never allowed people to be tortured, but in Brazil's History the law is often not respected, and torture is still widely used even today. Opinoso, in Talk:German Brazilian, 17:38, 25 May 2009.
His understanding, of course, includes something very original:
It does not say this penalty was legal, because torture is not legal in Brazil since the end of slavery in 1888. However, it's an "illegal penalty" widely used in the country, even today. Opinoso, in Talk:German Brazilian, 17:25, 29 May 2009
The new, and unheard of, concept of "illegal penalty".
To me, the correct attitude was preciselly summarised by you:
Clearly you mustn't misrepresent what A Colônia Suíça de Nova Friburgo (or anything else) says. But you also don't want to misrepresent the truth as you can (well-informedly) agree to it. Hoary, in Talk:White Brazilian, 03:45, 23 May 2009
This is exactly what is happening here. Wikipedia is misrepresenting the truth.
As to the substance of this debate, there are three different, though equally awful, things that may, or may not have happened:
actual or suspected Nazis were tortured by the Brazilian police to obtain confessions or information about their networks (this is quite certain to have happened; I wouldn't even question it if stated without sources);
"suspected Nazis" might have included people who were "suspected" of being Nazis just because they spoke German (and perhaps Yidish or Polish?) in public places (this seems less likely, though I would say it definitely possible; a reliable source is necessary to substantiate this, preferably with names of actual people who suffered this);
people were tortured (illegally) for the sole reason of speaking German (etc.) in public (this seems quite unlikely, and would need quite good sources, with names, dates, and follow up, to be taken in serious);
I am open to debate the reality or unreality of any of those - if, and only if, I am not subjected to things like,
Be neutral, and do not change the Historic facts. It's not encyclopedical to try to hide facts of the past just because they do not seem "correct".
Unless you do, it seems you're trying to "soften" the case.
You're not the one indicated to determine if a source is reliable or not, because you frequently write unsourced personal theories in articles. I remember when you tried to use Phone Books as source, like you did before claiming that most people in Brazilian Phone Books have Portuguese surnames, then they're all whites of direct Portuguese descent.
The fact is that you're trying to "hide" the anti-ethical attitudes towards Germans during the Getúlio Vargas government, saying they're "sensationalist claims".
Please, do not try to "soften" the historic facts and try to sell the idea that everything works well in Brazil, and that the law is respected here. It is not respected. Everybody knows the problems of Brazil, you do not need to try to hide them.
But evidently, my participation has two conditions: first, that the reference to "torture penalty" is previously removed; and second, that abuse like the reported above no longer goes on unpunished. Ninguém (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Your second condition: If another editor's behavior merits investigation and perhaps censure (or a block or even a ban), then let it get them. I'm not going to instigate any investigation myself, and if somebody else does then I'll probably stay away. I'm just too busy.
Your first condition: You were working on
this. It has no reference to any "torture penalty" (because this has already been struck out and then removed). -- Hoary (talk
) 10:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, last things first.
2. There is a simpler, easier, way to avoid the mistreatment I described before: not editing Wikipedia anymore. As of now, I think I have at least disentangled my name from this mess (except perhaps for this: [17]), so whether it is accurate or not is no longer a personal issue to me. If anyone asks me about Wikipedia offline, I can always answer what I really think, without any thought police being able to do anything.
Meanwhile, we have watched, in real time, another good faith user being effectively sent away from editing Opinoso's articles.
1. You have now two versions for the same article. I will no longer work on mine; Opinoso never worked on his, so it is unlikely that either are going to change (a third version is equally unlikely, for reasons discussed under #2 above). Choose the one you rate less flawed, and place it in the article.
Thank your for your time, effort, and patience; you were the first admin here to actually try and do something about this issue. If there were more like you, this project might work. Ninguém (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
