User:Hoary/Archive24

Personal attack

Sorry to bother you with this. Unhappily I don't know other admin that I find trustable on these issues.

Here [1], I am (and not for the first time) accused of being "obsessed" about things Portuguese.

As I have already said, I am not Portuguese, I am not "proud" of being of Portuguese descent, and I have nothing particular in favour, or against, Portugal and the Portuguese. Needless to say, I don't consider myself "obsessed", be it with Portugal or the Portuguese, or with anything else.

I very much resent those accusations, I think they are unfair and unwarranted, and I take them as personal attacks, which, as I understand, are explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia rules. So I want this kind of things stopped, now and for once. Can you please enforce the rules in this case? Ninguém (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that he has accused you of anything, although of course what he wrote is compatible with an accusation. But anyway I've asked him about it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you once more, Hoary. Ninguém (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, it seems reasonable to me to wait for the weekend to see if he answers to your queries. But I am still interested in his explanations, or lack thereof. Disqualifying other editors contributions by attributing "hidden" and disonest (or even base, as racism) motives to them - he has made too much of this, and not just against me. It is time for that to stop. Ninguém (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the weekend came and went, and he didnt find the time to clarify, or rectify, or take back his accusations, that I am "obsessed" with Portugal or that I am trying to "sell" some ideas in Wikipedia. If this was something occasional, I would gladly let it go. But it isn't. It is a systematic behaviour. Everybody who disagrees with Opinoso is a vandal, or edits on "hidden" motivations, or is "trying to sell" some personal opinion, or is a racist. Or at least everybody who disagrees with Opinoso and is Brazilian (or is Portuguese, or perhaps reads Portuguese) - to be fair I don't remember him making these things to English-speaking Wikipedians (I just don't know if this makes things better or worse). Nobody ever makes good faith mistakes, not to even mention the possibility that others could express a valid, if partial, opinion, or, *gast* be simply correct.

Also if he had a solid grasp on the subjects he edits I would be able to understand his behaviour. But he hasn't. His contributions to Wikipedia show how poorly he understands the subjects on which he is so eager to call others ignorant and ill-intentioned. "Nobody celebrates Carnival in Mato Grosso", "Sicilians have nothing to do with immigration to Brazil", "speaking German in 1940s Brazil was punished with a torture penalty", "illegal penalty", "Xuxa Meneghel is not Italian Brazilian", "Nelson is a Portuguese name", are some of the gems we have seen Opinoso stating in Wikipedia, all of them revealing the superficiality of his knowledge about these matters. So it is not the case of some actual authority on these subjects getting angry with the ignorance of other editors.

And it it is not the only problem with his edits. We have seen him removing fact tags from unsourced "information" in articles, and claiming the the person who placed them should instead find the sources for the information (which, according to him, was "easy", even though those sources never appeared at all). We have seen him reporting sources as saying the exact opposite of what they actually say, reporting figures that can't be found in the source, etc. In fact, his understandment of his sources seem to be a huge problem. One of his preferred authors is Darcy Ribeiro, a Brazilian nationalist and a supporter of Vargas (whom he deems the greatest Brazilian statesman ever) and Vargas' dictatorship - but Ribeiro is somehow reinterpreted as a supporter of post-modern multi-culturalism.

I really think this has to stop. Wikipedia has rules against this behaviour: they are called "Article Ownership" (WP:OWN), "Assume Good Faith (WP:AGF), "Accusing others of bad faith" (WP:AOBF), "Demonstrate Good Faith" (WP:DGF), "Civility" (WP:CIV), "No Personal Attacks" (WP:NPA), etc. His edits, edit summaries, ect., constantly violate those rules. He has been repeatedly warned to avoid this behaviour, and was even blocked a few times for it. He has never stopped it; in fact, he has sophisticated it, making his personal attacks less obvious, but his general line of reasoning never changed: every Portuguese-speaking editor who edits Opinoso's two areas of interest (Brazilian demography, particularly race and ethnicity in Brazil, and Brazilian celebrities, particularly race and ethnic origins of Brazilian celebrities) and is in disagreement with his ideas is not only wrong, but acting in bad faith to impose some agenda or express some "obsession": Ninguém, Lecen, Grenzen22, João Felipe C.S., Hentzer, Quissamã, etc. This was recently expanded to Chileans like Likeminas and Kusamanic, too.

So I am posting this to make clear that I have lost no interest in this issue, and to reinstate my request of rule enforcement in Opinoso's case. His statements about my "Portuguese obsession", his denounciation of my ill intentions in "selling" a "personal theory" on the unimportance of non-Portuguese demographic contributions to Brazil and of "selling" the idea that averages imply the idea that none of the figures taken in account for the average is null, presumably constitute personal attacks; his unability to explain those statements as something else confirms that this is exactly what they are. These personal attacks are nothing new in Opinoso's behaviour, nor are them a rare event; as well, his disruptive behaviour concerning this is nothing new: he is the editor who falsely accused me (twice!) of racism and who made a call-to-arms claiming that "Italians (were) under attack!", as if discussing figures of immigration could constitute somehow an attack on Italian ethnicity; so he shouldn't get a mere 24 hours block as if it was the first time he makes such baseless accusations. Ninguém (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

He's found no time in the last week to respond to the questions I put to him on his talk page, but he's also found no time during that period to write anything, anywhere. I'm not going to take action concerning the behavior of somebody who isn't here. -- Hoary (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me, as long as his absence doesn't mean that when he comes back my complaints get too old. Ninguém (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Hoary. As you may see ([2], [3], [4]), the user is back, making quite weird edits (take a look, for instance, at Rio Grande do Sul), and, of course, avoiding addressing your questions to him. What should be done now? Ninguém (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again, Hoary.

I am having some trouble in deciding what to do regarding this edit. It consists, as you certainly already know, of a set of fact tags. Taking the first of them, a source is being demanded for this assertion:

The Brazilian Censuses do not ask questions about "ethnic origin", so there are no systematically comparable data about the impact of Italian immigration

How exactly should I source the information that Brazilian Censuses do not ask questions about "ethnic origin"? Unhapilly, the IBGE usually states things about what they do, not about what they do not do. Should I perhaps give a link to each different Census form since 1872, to prove that none of them actually asked such questions?

Or perhaps what is under question is that there are no systematically comparable data about the impact of Italian immigration?

Wouldn't the burden of proof here belong to those who claim they can cite accurate numbers for a subject no one actually researches? For instance, another of the fact tags demands sources for this statement:

Varied entities, mainly the Italian diplomatic system and commercial associations that promote bilateral commerce between Brazil and Italy make claims about the figures of oriundi in Brazil, but none links to any actual survey. Also, if they are extrapolations of actual data on the number of immigrants, the calculations are not explained anywhere.

The fact is, perusing any of these "sources" will show that none of them is able to point to any actual research, survey, in a word, to any actual counting of people of Italian descent; and that none of them explains the calculations, if calculations there are, that leads to the conclusions they present.

What I am trying to say here is, the figures for people of Italian descent in Brazil are unverifiable. Yes, I can easily verify that some entities (the Italian diplomatic system, the bilateral commercial associations) report those figures. I (and as far as I know, anyone else) cannot verify that these "claims" have any relation to reality.

I am tempted to simply take away all those fact tags, but perhaps there is a better thing to do that you may suggest. Thanks in advance! Ninguém (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of those flags do indeed seem silly. I removed them. -- Hoary (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary.

Just to remark, I am still interested in understanding what Opinoso means when he says I have a "Portuguese obsession". And I fear I will continue to be interested as long as he continues to post here. Ninguém (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

His post below has resulted in the evaporation of any interest I had in him. His writing suggests the thought processes of a very young person. I imagine that sooner or later he'll do something very silly and get a longish block for it. -- Hoary (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would love to do the same; the guy is evidently of no intellectual interest. His unability to even superficially understand what the sources he provides say (to be honest, he is the first person I know that is able to correctly translate a text from Italian to English, and yet miss the meaning in both languages), and even to understand the implications of his own idle musings make him a quite uninteresting debater.

But unhappily I don't have the option of losing interest on him, since he is the one accusing me of things that, if true, should warrant me a def block from Wikipedia. Nor can I risk underestimating him; young or not, silly or not, this guy has managed already to get me blocked five (!) times with his false allegations to protect his false edits. One of them by publicly accusing me of racism, as you might remember. This probably says more about Wikipedia than about him, but anyway he is dangerous (and has actually damaged the "project" many times, by driving good-faith editors away with his sheer lack of manners and unsufferable stubborness).

And so I will keep doing what is within my reach and within honest behaviour to make his doing something very silly and getting a longish - preferable permanent - block the more expedient possible.

But thanks anyway. I don't think I would be still trying to collaborate in Wikipedia if it wasn't for your patience and kindness (and intelligence) in dealing with these stupid matters. Ninguém (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder

Hello!

Thanks for the reminder. I was a bit nervous at his behaviour and the damage that he has done to Brazilian subjects (and it is not only me who thinks this way). And I think that nationality plays no role in deciding who will contribute (he is Brazilian I guess). What I wanted to express is my good intention, that was all.

Cheers Grenzer22 (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hoary, in your reminder to Grenzer22, you wrote the following:

The very link that you provided showed Opinoso politely giving a good reason to say that Nelson was a Portuguese name.

Please, have a second look at that link. Here is how Opinoso ends it:

By the way, I don't need to claim any remote "colonial Portuguese ancestry" to know enough about Portugal. On the other hand, there are people who seem to be so proud of their remote Portuguese ancestry but know nothing about Portugal. What a shame.

This seems to me far from polite. It is another of his accusations of hidden motivations by other editors. In this case, it means that my contributions are driven by my ancestry. It is also a lie: nowhere have I ever stated or implied that I am proud of my ancestry (in fact, in these matters, I am in agreement with Bertrand Russel: talking about one's ancestry usually only shows one's decadence).

To make it clear, I don't care about Portugal or the Portuguese. For instance, I don't go to articles about the United States or Canada and try to inflate, or underline, Portuguese "contribution" to the demography of those countries. I know it exists; I don't care if it was bigger than the Italian or the Afghan one. Nor do I think it would somehow benefit (or conversely, damage) Portugal if it was bigger or smaller. Evidently, if I knew for sure that it was almost insignificant and saw in those articles it being inflated to the point of saying that something like ten percent of the US population is "Portuguese American", I would try to remove the misinformation - which is what I have been trying to do with the gross exaggerations about "Italian Brazilians", "Arab Brazilians", "German Brazilians", and practically anything-Brazilian.

To be more clear, I find the idea that stating in an "online encyclopaedia" that there are 436436326+ Brazilians "Somewherelandese Brazilians" somehow benefits Somewhereland puerile - in a sort of ten-year-old puerility. Similarly, the idea that Brazil has the largest, or second largest, or n-th largest population of Japanese, African, or Tadjik descent is something that for some reason Brazilians could be "proud" of strikes me as something I might have thought when I was a pre-teenager - which, alas, means long, long ago.

In your reminder to Grenzer22, you also say this:

His argument may be defective and may not convince you, but it is an argument. He actually comes off there as educated and informed. Flatly saying that you're better educated and informed than somebody else can only be counterproductive.

In that edit, that you call "educated and informed", Opinoso does something quite similar to what you are complaining about in Grenzer22's post, the main difference being in the adbverb "flatly". If stating things like "there are people who seem to be so proud of their remote Portuguese ancestry but know nothing about Portugal" instead of flatly saying that he is better educated and informed than User Ninguém - which is what he meant - makes the difference between shooting one's foot and coming off as educated and informed, then it may follow that making stealthy insinuations about other users intelligence or knowledge is the way to win "contests between editors".

And, by the way, you asked Opinoso to clarify two statements about myself and/or my contributions, that might constitute personal attacks. Quite typically, he has yet to answer that. I am reminding you of that, and hoping you won't find this an abuse of your patience from my part, because I have found that allowing these things to get old without insisting on them tends to benefit rule breakers. So, can you please remind him that he should explain what he means when he mentions a "ridiculous obsession" or the "sale" of "personal opinions" in connection to my contributions?

Thank you again, Hoary, and sorry to again involve you in this foolery. I know I am somehow punishing you for being a good admin, but what can I do when the standard behaviour is to chime in to say things like "I don't care how many Brazilians of this or that descent there are, and I find the subject ridiculous/boring/unimportant, ergo both 'sides' are in the wrong"? Ninguém (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well pointed out Ninguém. Thanks. Grenzer22 (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with much that you say above, Ninguém. And I am also well aware that Opinoso has not yet replied to my remarks on his talk page. Right now, this is all that I would like to say on the matter; please do not take this to mean that I have lost interest in it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Hoary. I hope you don't mind if I keep, from time to time, making sure that I also have not lost interest in it. In the past, I have found myself often lamenting being unduly complacent with this kind of things, and dormientibus non succurrit jus. Ninguém (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic English abbreviations

Hi, Hoary. As a native speaker of encyclopedic English, what do you think of this? I'd go for "a.k.a.", rather than "aka" being more "encyclopedic", but writing the whole thing out as "also known as" seems more Anal-retentic than Encyclopedic to me... Seems to me that encyclopedias I've looked at--

I quote: A madman is on the loose, raping and murdering women and sometimes engaging in necrophilia. Aha (or should I say "a.h.a."?), this can only be a Dekkappai movie! My dear fellow, can you not occasionally feign interest in mundane things? (Like Ebonics, for example.)

And now to your thrilling question. First, "also known as" strikes me as a particularly labored substitute for "or". I can't get worked up about the dots of "a.k.a.". I believe that when it's pronounced at all it's still pronounced aykayay, so "a.k.a." doesn't irritate me as does for example "N.A.T.O." -- but I'd still probably skip the dots. But if you want my recommendation, it's "or".

Sorry, I'm falling asleep. The denizens of the MoS talk pages manage to take all this very seriously; you could try them for unintended amusement if nothing else. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being one of the 4,726 who viewed

No Country for Old Men, and got a brisk reminder of why I've exiled myself to Wikipedia's back alleys. Too many kooks out there on the main streets... Dekkappai (talk

) 02:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am about to be bold. -- Hoary (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC) ... I have now been bold. Elsewhere, how do you like the way that no building is ever in any city (unless it's me who's just been editing); instead it's located in that city. And people don't live anywhere; instead they reside there. (In their residences there, I suppose.) Such genteelism! -- Hoary (currently located in his residence) 03:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Better be prepared to block someone over the impending edit war... I recall the dirtiest look I ever got from a secretary when I was informed that Mr. So&So who I'd dropped in to see was not in his office "at this point in time". I paused. "You mean 'now'?" And got a scowl... By the way, any time you touch a "Dekkappai article" you'd better wash your hands with hot water and anti-bacterial soap... Dekkappai (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, gawrsh, a "point in time" is in contradistinction to a "period of time". So: "Japan as number one" was a catchphrase "for a time", too easy to understand; "for a period", ditto; "for a period of time", satisfying "executive" plushiness; for a period of residence demarcated by two points located in time, now that's the sort of burnished verbal ordure for which "consultants" can charge dear. (Incidentally, what happened to "executive"? A decade ago it was a would-be impressive and thus laughable term to mean "pertaining to solemn guys in suits", but I haven't seen it around much lately.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about the vanishing "executive", I'm just P.O.'ed that juicy is no longer a "professional" adjective... especially in this context... Dekkappai (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese

User:Ninguém is only an user who is since the beggining saying that "The overwhelming majority of Brazilian Whites are of Portuguese colonial descent" (his words). He already claimed to be of "colonial Portuguese descent" and even used a strange expression (pêlo-duro, something like "hard animal hair" because pêlo means animal hair and duro hard in Portuguese). I never heard about that "pêlo-duro" expression. It seems an internal expression used to describe people of colonial Portuguese ancestry.

I tried to find when he posted that, but I could not find it, I think it was removed for some reason...

He is always hinting that the numbers of descendants of immigrants of non-Portuguese origin is exaggerated or inflated: [5]; [6];

He is also always finding a way to put anything about Portuguese people in the middle [7]

[8] ("If we can't mention Galicians, let's mention that some of them were actually Portuguese")

The strange part is that I never saw that user saying that any information about Portuguese in Brazil is false or exaggerated. But when it comes about Italians, or Arabs or Germans...the opposite!!

And also, when he posted that (unsourced) information that in Eastern Rio Grande do Sul people are of Portuguese ancestry...([9]) here it goes: Ninguém already said he is from that same area, Eastern Rio Grande do Sul!! And no, people from that area are a mix mostly of Spaniards with Amerindians, not Portuguese!

I see a clear connection between what he writes in Wikipedia and his self-declared "colonial Portuguese" ancestry: he claimed people from Eastern Rio Grande are of colonial Portuguese descent (like he claims to be), when the sources claim the opposite, that they are mostly a mix of Iberians, mainly Spaniards with Amerindians and some Africans (!!!).

Where did he bring the Portuguese from? Nobody knows.

User Ninguém said he has no "proud" of being of "Portuguese ancestry". He should, because Portugal is a nice country and I'm proud of my Portuguese ancestry. He should join the team. But it's not because I'm proud of my remote Portuguese origin that I will say that in Eastern Rio Grande people are of Portuguese descent, when they are not. Let's face the reality. I won't say that "The overwhelming majority of Brazilian Whites are of Portuguese colonial descent" because I know that's far from being the reality...

Do you know what I mean? I'm clear.

By the way, yes I'm "not too busy" but I'm nearly at that point. Happy Easter! Opinoso (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

-[quote]Where did he bring the Portuguese from? Nobody knows[/quote]Opinoso

They came from the Azores mainly, Azorean couples were settled in Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Maranhão (border areas) by the Portuguese. A few Southerners of Azorean ancestry: Anita Garibaldi (she married Giuseppe Garibaldi), Getúlio Vargas (former president of Brazil), João Goulart (former president of Brazil), Irineu Evangelista the Baron of Mauá (Azorean grandparents), Érico Veríssimo (famous writer from Rio Grande do Sul) and Luís Carlos Prestes (communist leader). Read about it. There are tons of books about it. Thousands of settlers (couples) were placed in Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina. That area was of strategic importance for the Portuguese Crown.

http://www.comunidadesacorianas.org/artigo.php?id_artigo=3&idioma=PT

http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/17918

http://www.ivoladislau.com/pesquisas_acoriana_a_vinda_dos_acorianos.htm

Grenzer22 (talk)

Replied here. -- Hoary (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your

GA nomination of Photography in Denmark

Thank you. If it is indeed close to meeting the criteria, then the credit goes to Ipigott, not me. (It's

his article.) -- Hoary (talk

) 00:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary, for all your help with Photography in Denmark over the past weeks and months. As you can see, the GA review process went off very smoothly after all. And I think the comments made were for the most part sensible and helpful. Hope we can work together on another photography article one of these days. Keep in touch. -- Ipigott (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I should have congratulated you, Sir. However, the "real world" has kept me rather busy today.

Yes, Jezhotwells' remarks made me bristle at first, but when I came to look at the article in one window while reading them in another, I realized that they were perceptive. So the process improved the article. It's not just a "Good Article", it's a good article. Well done! -- Hoary (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Language icons

Hi again. I have just been involved in a discussion about language icons in references. As you are a stickler for presenting references correctly, I thought you might be interested. You'll find it at Talk:Ibsen quotes, Oslo under References. The editor in question, User:Geschichte, is quite a phenonemon. He has created over 14,000 articles, mostly related to Norway, since 2005! Could that be a record? -- Ipigott (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm no fan of language icons. But I loathe citation templates. (In principle, I'm all for them. But I hate them as they are, and proposals to make them more flexible all seem to make them yet more unwieldy.) I splatter "my" articles with language icons as just one way to reduce the risk that others will degrade the article more severely via templates. (Oh ... er ... which Norwegian would all of that be?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tend to agree with you on the citation templates but I find the icons a bit artificial. It seems to me that something in plain English like "In French" would do the job just as well. The Norwegian in question is User:Geschichte He was originally known as User:Punkmorten. As you may know you can find the number and titles of articles created by using the Soxred pages created tool. In this connection, the most productive user of all appears to be User:Dr. Blofeld (formerly User:Himalayan Explorer) who has created over 28,000 articles. At that point the tool breaks down so there may well be many more. The same tool shows me that you wrote your first article on Voigtländer on 7 November 2004 and that you have now written a total of 178. -- Ipigott (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, the tool shows the number of articles started by a user, not the number of articles in which they provided the majority of content, or made significant improvement. If we had a tool that measured that across the board, we would find that our colleague Hoary has made excellent contributions to several hundred (if not several thousand) articles. Thanks, Hoary. Risker (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Please continue with the prior conversation, I just saw an opportunity to recognise a great contributor. :-)

Risker, you're too kind. Yes I suppose I've contributed to a few hundred. However, it's very rare for my contributions to be major. Recently I seem to have fallen into a rut whereby I'll work on the biography of somebody living or recently dead but will start with the kind of uninteresting material that can be presented in list form; I then aim at both comprehensiveness of list items and scrupulous sourcing thereof, and by the time I've brought the lists to a stage at which I think they do justice to what's to be found in the materials available to me, I've quite exhausted my initial enthusiasm and have little appetite for the construction of actual sentences and paragraphs. I'm also drawn to articles that have to be sourced in languages in which my competence is minimal or non-existent -- no, I don't depend on my guesswork of what the sources say, but I have to badger editors who do understand. -- Hoary (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange case of user banning

Hello Hoary. As you have been helpful on a wide range of matters in the past, I wondered if I could ask you for advice on a very strange case of banning I have discovered in connection with work on Danish literature, specifically Hans Christian Andersen. It looks to me at if User:Kathyrncelestewright was banned at least partly as a result of others trying to interfere with her work and her identity in November 2009. The ban is not to be lifted until May 2011 and in the meantime a host of important articles have been frozen and may well be completely removed. You will find more details here. Please read the discussion carefully, particularly the section on the Andersen articles and what follows. I look forward to receiving your opinion. -- Ipigott (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't claim to have read the discussion carefully. However, I have skimread, and come to the tentative conclusion that this editor was banned as a "sock" of another editor, who was banned for having used "socks" in the worst way, and lying about them to an unusual and even risible degree. I didn't check the chronology, but if material of any kind is created by (an IP or "sock" of) a blocked (or banned) editor, that material is usually deleted automatically. However, its deletion (or here "userfication") doesn't mean that it need remain deleted (or userfied), if an editor in good standing wants to vouch for it. Or so I think, but I'm not conversant with the relevant policy/guideline pages, and am sleepy; so all in all you shouldn't, and you shouldn't ask anyone else to, take me too seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Hi. I agree with you that the page for Danah Boyd has not established notability. In my opinion, the page is solely a vanity, promotional page and has been sustained only by a small group of editors who know her personally, or nearly personally. Thank you for adding the notability tag. It is likely that the coterie of her online friends will remove it. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

More (millions more!) Arab Brazilians

Hello, Hoary. Here I am, again bothering you with this boring subject. As you know, there is a tendency to inflate the figures of hyphenated Brazilians. Particulary "Arab Brazilians" get the most ridiculous figures; 12 million is a popular one. I hope I have demonstrated, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this figure is completely incompatible with any available actual data on Arab immigration to Brazil. But it keeps being reinstated. Now, I don't want to get into an edit war, and then be blocked by some admin who doesn't know, or care, anything about Brazil or demography, so could you please help me in dealing with this?

Thanks in advance. 189.27.32.140 (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, Hoary. Ninguém (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And Spanish Brazilians...

Hello again, Hoary. I am having trouble also in these two articles:

Thanks in advance, Ninguém (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the deletion of the "verification failed" (was it?) tag. As for the other, you seem to say that you've written on the relevant talk page about that too, but I see no sign of this. Especially in the noxious atmosphere of south American ethnic matters, I'm most reluctant to restore material that even you say is problematic. -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary. It was a "verification failed" tag, yes. Concerning the other problem, I haven't written in the Talk Page of Rio Grande do Sul (which I plan to do, probably tomorrow), but merely asked, in an edit summary, for a discussion in the Talk Page.

I am still interested in this IP's identity. What should I do so that it is investigated? Ninguém (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have strong grounds to suspect that this is a blocked or banned user, then you post a request on the sockpuppet investigation noticeboard; if you don't, then there's nothing that you can do. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is one thing that I can do: I can ask you to semi-protect both these articles,

Haha, and I am hereby so refusing. Really Ninguém, the former has recently undergone bizarre edits by a single IP (which is never grounds for blocking all IPs), whereas the latter doesn't seem to have recently been messed around by anybody. ¶ But if matters take a turn for the worse, do let me know. -- Hoary (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it certainly continues; I don't know if this is a turn for the worse, or merely remaining as bad as before... Well, I guess I will try to discuss the issue in the Talk Page. Based on my previous experience, I predict that this IP will not discuss anything, or will say something as funny as "Nelson is a Portuguese name" or "when you mix White with Black and Amerindians, the physical type of the latter two predominate". But maybe it is worth a try, if only to test my premonitory abilities... :) Ninguém (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems yes, I can establish myself as a seer or prophet. Ninguém (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar for

John Vanburgh

		The Citation Barnstar
		Thanks for adding loads of sources to John Vanburgh, keep it up :) -- Eraserhead1 <talk > 21:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahem! John Vanbrugh, please. But thank you.

I'm not at all happy with this FAR business or with splattering an article such as this with "citation needed" flags. (By contrast, I'll merrily blast anything smelling of self-promotion with these.) At the same time, I'll acknowledge that the article is grievously undersourced. Moreover, parts of it were written surprisingly badly, e.g. (until a few hours ago): Downes took pains to explore Vanbrugh's background, [...] concluding that far from being of lower middle class origins, Vanbrugh was descended from Anglo-Flemish or Netherlandish Protestant merchants who settled in London in the 16th and 17th centuries, minor courtiers, and country gentry. The complex web of kinship Downes' research revealed shows that far from being of obscure or base origins, Vanbrugh had ties to many of England's leading mercantile, gentry, and noble families (emphases added). And that close by the gruesome phrase "kith and kin" (which has repugnant connotations).

I hope that the article improves considerably. -- Hoary (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Same here. Sorry for the slow reply and the mis-spelling :o.

I think the problem is that without the FAR and the annoying citation needed tags its doubtful that any progress would have been made - though its probably fair to say I was overly aggressive on the latter. The lack of citations had been a problem since 2006 and no sources had really been added at all in the meantime and really without the sourcing it was at best a C-class article and that's more than a little rule bending to claim its an FA. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catface1965

You may be interested in

Get your gun and shoot this enemy of my country. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

May I use a 16-ton weight instead? -- Hoary (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You promised you wouldn't do fruit this week! Dekkappai (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Promises, promises! Sgt. knows I've been suffering from fruit poisoning. Perhaps I was too optimistic to expect him to do LEGO this week. Oda Mari (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Camerapedia

You're an admin there, I think. Is the text also licensed under CC 3 as well as by GFDL/ in other words, can it be used in Wikipedia? DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The top page tells the world: Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. No mention of CC. This is reiterated in the "about" page. Copyright matters aside, Camerapedia (CP) is a wiki and thus is not a reliable source for WP. For a narrow-brush depiction: the quality of the content varies enormously and that by Rebollo_fr (who on rare occasion is even present here) shows a superb combination of scrupulous research of (mostly Japanese) published sources, careful "original research", and well informed and intelligent "original synthesis" -- the kind of stuff that rightly or wrongly is disqualified within WP. And quite aside from matters of copyright and the policies of WP, different degrees of intelligence have been applied to copying stuff from CP; here you see me coming very close to giving somebody (a treble admin, no less) an appellation that I don't recall having used elsewhere but that there would have been amply justified. However, Gwen Gale arrived and rephrased the objection more decorously (though I don't know how effectively). -- Hoary (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Robots

Hoary, I have been trying to remove this silly misunderstanding, the linking of an article about a small town in Minas Gerais called "Paulistas" as the Portuguese Wikipedia equivalent of the article on the denonym "Paulistas". Robots have been reinserting such nonsence, though. How can they be stopped?

Thanks in advance. Ninguém (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's only partly their fault. Some previous human error was primarily to blame. ¶ These robots are, on balance, a plus. I suppose it's reasonable for their programmers to take the existence of links both ways between any two of (say) no:XYZ, ro:XYZ and pt:XYZ and the existence of links both ways between ro:XYZ and en:XYZ as reason to link en:XYZ to and from no:XYZ and pt:XYZ. The real blame falls on the creators of the first wrong links, or on those who didn't change the links after the subject of the article was changed. I'm not going to investigate, but I suspect that the ultimate cause of all this nonsense is in computer-generated articles with insufficient human oversight. ¶ I believe and hope that I have now fixed the problem for good. This involved creating eight new "Hoary" accounts and one "Throwaway" account, for this kind of thing. (There went one hour of my life, or anyway what seemed like an hour or longer.) If I'm ever in your part of the world, Ninguém, you buy me a beer! -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Hoary. I couldn't imagine it would be so crazily time (and patience) consuming.

A few years ago, I worked in the interface between software developers and software users, and I noticed a quite regular pattern (which is perhaps a consequence of Murphy's law): whenever users, with great embarrassment, asked for a very complicated change, that they deemed would drive the developers crazy, it could be planned in twenty minutes and fixed with two or three lines of code. Whenever users, confidently, asked for a quite simple change, it drove the developers into a nightmare involving something like a week between planning, implementing, fixing bugs, etc., and around 5-6 thousand code lines. Computers are like this...

So please, have your beer, and send me the bill!

(seriously, though, I am again wondering if it is worth the trouble. Each time I bump into an article, I either find something outrageously mistaken - such in the Paulistas example - or, even worse, something that looks wrong, sounds wrong, smells wrong, feels wrong and tastes wrong, but that I unhappily haven't the the time, or knowledge, or patience, to meddle with. And when I do find the time, patience, and knowledge to mess up with it, I often find myself quickly desiring that I hadn't. Here is an example. All because I found a template that abused my sence of dignity by labeling 'Italian Brazilians', 'German Brazilians', etc. - and you know, I suppose, how long the etc. list is in this case - 'European Brazilians', and even worse, 'Argentinian Brazilians', 'Bolivian Brazilians', etc., 'South American Brazilians'.

Yes. And I don't even like beer, so I do have to do it without anesthesics.) Ninguém (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't like beer? Hmm, how about wine?

That matter aside, I know how you feel. Consider Paulistas. Even after you had edited it, it cited no source whatever. I found myself regretting that it didn't look like a copyright violation: had it been one I could have deleted it, redirected it to the article on the area, and avoided any worry about other-language stuff.

This is a site for people whose (paid) work takes a lot less of their time than my (paid) work takes of my time. -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a controversy between physicists and physicians... I learnt in my Physics classes that beer, wine, coke, coffe, milk, tea, etc., are all liquids, but my physician insists they are not. I wonder if they are solid or gaseous, but anyway my drinking choices are actually quite limited: water, water, water, and occasionally fruit juice or milk. Or tea, provided that it is not actually tea, nor mate. And water again. But yes, I used to like wine better than beer, at the time they were both liquid.

Considering Paulistas, the horror was so huge that I felt compelled to suppress at least its most impressive mistakes, and to do so without perusing my library or the internet to find exact quotes about the subject. Which is the reason I left it unsourced.

And the big problem, of course, is that people whose jobs are less time consuming seem to also consume very little of their time reading and trying to understand the subjects about which they write here. And, oh, even merely using common-sence (as bad as common-sence is, it is often better than utter lack of sence). I mean, "South American Brazilian" is beyond ridiculous, it looks like a joke... I wondered if Wikipedia considers people like Michel Platini or Dominique Strauss-Kahn "European French"; a bad feeling took over, and I dared searching for "European French". Luckily the article, which indeed exists, is about French as a language, as it is spoken and written in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. Whew.

A tougher fight seems to be "European Brazilian". There was already and attempt to reinstate it in the template. Now I certainly understand the concept of "Italian Brazilian" or "Polish Brazilian" (they certainly don't work in Brazil in the same way "Irish American" works in the United States - or in the way it is often said it works there, I'm not sure of the boundaries between reality and 'narrative' in a foreign culture - but I sure know people who can adequately be described as "German Brazilian"). The idea, however, that "German Brazilians", "Italian Brazilians", etc., all together make a "European Brazilian" category is decidedly in the realm of sheer fantasy. But I fear that this will remain a problem until it becomes possible to firmly establish a distinction between "ancestry" and culture (you may see in the [Spanish Brazilian Talk Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spanish_Brazilian] that some people believe "ancestry" works fine, and a "Spanish Brazilian" is any person of (any?) Spanish descent. For my part, being of Italian and Portuguese descent, I don't feel "Italian Brazilian" or "Portuguese Brazilian" in the least; being a Gaúcho, I also don't feel "Spanish Brazilian" at all (which, according to an IP that perfectly emulates the editing (and bossing) style of Opinoso, I should). Indeed, such approach is unlikely to explain a country where most of the population is of Portuguese ancestry, but whose predilect target for jokes of dubious taste are exactly the Portuguese. But, then, perhaps the purpose of this "encyclopedia" (like Chacrinha's) is not to explain, but to confuse.

At this moment, the

Afro-Brazilian

article claims that "Afro-Brazilian" is a term used to classify Brazilians, and gives as reference for such statement a source where "Afro-Brazilian" (or any recognisable variation of it) isn't used even once. Looks like a religious tenet.

Anyway, thanks again, Hoary. Ninguém (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering Paulistas, the horror was so huge that I felt compelled to suppress at least its most impressive mistakes, and to do so without perusing my library or the internet to find exact quotes about the subject. Which is the reason I left it unsourced. Yes, I've done similar. E.g. this hagiography, which I recently worked on a little. Though it turned out that I had a book that spends half a chapter on this mogul. -- Hoary (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. This is another problem; I have come to doubt the accuracy of all articles in Wikipedia, because those that deal with subjects I have any passable knowledge are full of mistakes, legends, misinterpretations, even physically impossible assertions, some of them insistently reposted when removed (this must be the only place in the world where one can find people that behave as fanatics considering average temperatures). Then I have to wonder what weird distortions lie under the apparent reliability of articles on biographies of Kenyan generals, Circassian languages, Dutch towns, Burmese poetry, public education in Louisianna, or Theravada Buddhism - to name a few subjects about which I know nothing or close to nothing. Wouldn't that be the point of an Encyclopedia, to make available reputable information about things readers don't have learnt about in school or life? Ninguém (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'm rather interested in Circassian languages, and I do enjoy some Dutch towns. ¶ I used to think there was a simple rule of thumb: anything that had been exposed on the boob tube (let alone on a "gameboy" or similar) would attract people with a mental age of 13 but the rest was safe from children and loonies. Actually no, nothing is. What you read may or may not be worth reading; you just ("just"!) have to check the (claimed) sources. Often of course no source is credited, but often enough a specified source doesn't say what the article says and this "sourcing" is mere fiction. -- Hoary (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Holy fruitcake, I have just received mail from PayPal (unusually, this would seem to be PayPal itself, rather than a Nigerian or other imitator) that starts [my real name], play the world shopping championship for your chance to win up to USD$17,000 in prizes. Yes, you read it right, a world shopping championship. In a world with idiocy like this, is it hard to believe that so many are intent on adding crap to Wikipedia? Anyway, this is one of those messages that make me wish there were some mechanism by which I could deliver an electric shock to the boss ("CEO"?) of the company that sent it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a break from south American silliness for a couple of minutes; try this. -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, another article that I wouldn't be able to realise as a forgery. This at least would be an article that I would probably not have ever read if it was not brought to my attention, because (I suppose) extra-Wikipedia references to such unperson would be rare. Speaking of hoaxes, ever heard of Galvão birds? Ninguém (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese sourcing or the lack thereof

Hi, Hoary. As a generally Deletion-minded chap, I've noticed your comments on the difficulty on finding sourcing on Japanese subjects. The issue arises again at

Hello, Hoary. You have new messages at 133.7.7.240's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kiko4564 (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page

Seriously that you can't delete the large section of which "Deletion" there is a sub-part? Yes, seriously. It's relevant to the article and however fruitless it may be it is not objectionable. If you really think it's a waste of space then you collapse it with the "hat" and "hab" templates or you can expedite its transfer here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're saying that the section above that subsection can't be deleted? That is correct, but that's really unclear from your statement and the subsection it's in, it merely appears to be an inappropriate use of the article's talk page. Who exactly are you instructing with that comment and section? Honestly, it looks like a "So there! - Take that! You can't delete this subsection, because it's not allowed!" kind of comment rather than a polite notification that the talk page section above it shouldn't be deleted, but instead archived. It would be good to refactor your statement to more clearly reflect its intent. Thanks!

Dreadstar ☥

15:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I had assumed, perhaps wrongly, that people would realize a "=== ===" section was part of a "== ==" section. ¶ Who exactly are you instructing with that comment and section? Anybody. But I had particularly in mind Kwami, who had censored every bit of that section that could imaginably have hurt anybody's feelings, and the IP, who'd indignantly deleted the bowdlerized remainder. ¶ My regret is that I hadn't reverted Kwami, whose censorship, though surely well-intentioned, was crude and counterproductive. I could then have followed this up by deleting clear personal attacks on anyone other than myself, and by striking through (not deleting) any "incivility" by myself. -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally understand where you're coming from and what you were conveying, and I think this was a very nice move...so good in fact:

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I hereby award you this Barnstar of Integrity for doing the Right Thing Always...!! Dreadstar ☥ 03:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Phew, that was easily earned! But thank you anyway. ¶ Perhaps I have a minority opinion on "incivility", but I can't get upset about it unless I think children or "the vulnerable" are around. Clear personal attacks are a different matter, but it's very rare for any to upset me; and even if one did manage to upset me, I'd never remove it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it iconic?

Howdy, based on your old comments here, I thought you might be interested in some new comments I've made there. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Today's Guardian, which is intermittently a good newspaper -- at least about Britain and the US; it only has a sporadic interest in other parts of the world -- has an article titled "Sixty years of the Fender Telecaster" that's introduced with: Legendary guitarists, including Andy Summers and Graham Coxon, on why they love the iconic guitar. If only I had such perceptiveness, such verbal skill! I weep in jealousy. -- Hoary (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks.

Hoary, sorry to bother you with this subject again. Here you can see old personal attacks being reinstated.

Some examples:

Funny that Ninguém already reported to be of "colonial Portuguese descent" An unwarranted speculation on my motives. Not the first time.

Ninguém, stop selling the idea that Brazilians cut their "cultural" and "spiritual" relations with the country from where their relatives come from, because we don't. Accusing me of "selling ideas". Not the first time.

I think Ninguém should leave the Internet and talk to real-life Brazilians. It's incredible how he spends a whole day at Wikipedia and how much free time he has to spend here. I wish I had it to. We all did, I think. And now it seems he wants to tell me what to do with my time.

I have asked those things to stop, and I am asking again. Ninguém (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary. Ninguém (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I will need your help again, unhappily, as

Brazilians of Spanish descent is again being filled with false informations. Thanks in advance. Ninguém (talk

) 23:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You might as well take a look on what is happening in User:SamEV's Talk Page. Thanks in advance. Ninguém (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And I hope you understand and forgive my insistence. Can you also take a look at the History of my own user page? I believe I don't have to stand such kind of stupid bullying, and I would like it to stop for good. Ninguém (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm very much aware of all this and have several relevant pages on my watchlist. I have already drafted a message for "WP:AN/I", but I'm not posting it quite yet. -- Hoary (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Ninguém (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't get too old, or that Opinoso's convenient "business" ATM doesn't get in the way of a solution. Each month he comes again, makes a series of disruptive moves, and then becomes unavailable for discussion for several weeks (albeit eventually making some disruptive edits as an anonymous IP).

In a different register, a non-demographic source continues to be added and readded to

Brazilians of Spanish descent

, although it doesn't give any hint on how it reached its figures... How do I do to make clear that such source, albeit being reliable in the field of Diplomatics, is unrealiable in the field of Demography?

Again thanks for your patience. Ninguém (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Friendship

Your friendship with user Ninguém doesn't help. He now feels free to do whatever he wants in Wikipedia and everytime another user doesn't agree with him, he runs to your talk page and you are always there to support him. Ninguém has free time to spend long hours writing huge texts with beautiful words and good English, so he is really able to "make friends" and bring them to his team. Other users who do not have good English and no time, are not able to make friend...poor them.

Funny that Ninguém used to accuse me of being friends of administrators... Where are they? I never sent private messages to adm. to persuade them, I don't even know how to send an e-mail via Wikipedia. But what worries me is that now Ninguém is able to spend virtually 24 hours a day connected to Wikipedia...BUT one day he will have to disconect, see the "out-side world". And you won't be there to help him, Hoary! The real world is worse, even more in a violent country like Brazil (no, Brazil is not a calm and safe country like Portugal). Opinoso (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, does Ninguém run to my talk page, or does he send me email?

Whether or not he runs to my talk page, he does indeed come to it and he leaves messages on it. If anything about the messages (or my responses to them) is improper, then all can see it.

I have a very hazy memory of having once received a message from Ninguém, or you, or Lecen, or Grenzer, or one of the others who always seem to be involved in south American demographic kerfuffles. That would have been well over a year ago. The message was polite and unobjectionable but I thought it better to keep everything above-board and instead responded on the user's talk page (without mentioning that I'd got private mail). If you indeed have never sent a private message to an administrator, then I would guess that this puts you in the same boat as Ninguém, although of course for all I know he may busily send private messages to other administrators.

It's easy to send private messages via Wikipedia. On the user's talk page, you just click on the link saying "Email this user". But please don't send me any. (Ninguém, if you are reading this, please don't send me any either.)

Portugal is, I think, not particularly safe. (When I was there last, traffic fatalities were high, at least by European standards.) But I'd agree that Brazil is hugely more dangerous. When the São Paolo police even beat up the São Paolo police it's so bad that it's almost funny -- but of course it isn't funny at all.

I don't think you have to worry about Ninguém. He's a big boy and wouldn't need avuncular assistance when away from the computer that you are sure he uses virtually 24 hours a day. Indeed, your premises seem to be very mistaken: If we look at his contributions from the start of July to his latest in July, we see breaks of about 10 hours, 5 hours, 8 hours, 10 hours, and 2 hours -- all within just two or three days.

Now, if you have a complaint about my editing or administering, please feel free to make it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Portugal is not more dangerous than most Western European countries....it is actually famous for being a very, almost irritating calm country (maybe Lisbon or Porto are the non-calm exceptions).

About your relationship with Ninguém, you already claimed that you deslike me (or my behaviour) and I never read you saying the same about Ninguém, so you prefer the latter. Given that, you are not neutral. And it's obvious because Ninguém is always running to your talk page and he knows that he will receive your feed-back. So he can remove as many genetic studies as he wants, because Hoary will be there for him. Over-editions? Ninguém is free to do it as well!

And he breaks 10 hours after 2 hours of continous over-editing articles. I never saw Ninguém writing an article. I only saw him removing informations and adding fact tag. Or, what he likes the most, opening endless discussions in talk pages and nearly forcing me to be part of them (because he virtually only edits articles that I edited before, since after nearly 2 years of Wikipedia, I can't see a single article created by Ninguém). Opinoso (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about you, Opinoso. As for your edits, they have at times irritated me considerably. Ninguém's have irritated me less. Does this make me "not neutral"? I shouldn't have thought so -- unless of course I have applied different standards to your edits and his.

No contributor to WP is obliged to create any articles. I can think of very valuable contributors who don't create them. There's probably some tool that lists articles started by a given user, but offhand I don't know of it. If Ninguém (or you) has started none, this doesn't worry me. If you have (or he has) started good ones, excellent. If either of you have started junk articles, that's a pity.

You seem to claim that, as a biased administrator, I have somehow protected Ninguém and allowed (or even encouraged?) him to abuse Wikipedia articles. If this is indeed what you're claiming, it's serious. If it's a matter of abuse of my position as administrator, you may wish to bring it up at WP:AN/I. If it's not so clearcut, or if it's broader, then read this on what you might do. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that I have too much time to edit Wikipedia, that my English is reasonable, and that I am even able to make friends in the internet (perhaps because I don't insult people gratuitously?) I am sorry that I use beautiful words. I am also sorry that my "huge texts" seem to be compelling, and actually convince people that I am not talking bullshit - even though, according to Opinoso, "nobody reads them". What should the punishment for those heinous crimes be? La corbata colorada, perhaps? Or would it be something that could happen to me whence I "have to disconect" and "see the 'out-side world'", where "Hoary won't be there to help" me? Like, for instance, perhaps, real-world thugs interested in internet discussions about hyphenated Brazilian ancestries beating me to death?

I thought veiled threats of this kind are forbidden in Wikipedia. Aren't they?

Some suggestions. We could automatically unlog users after 30 minutes of editing Wikipedia. We could block them temporarily for about a month after each edit. This way they wouldn't spend too much time in Wikipedia. We could install an online ortographic "incorrector" so that if any user writes in excessively good English, erorrs and mitsakes will be intorduced automatticaly, avoiding they of convicting several peoples thorough inaproppriataly well gramars. We could make insults and slurs mandatory, so that people would never make friends in Wikipedia, making it safer for poor people whose English is too poor to make online friends. We should most certainly dispense with the "Email this User" feature, as it is only useful for disruptions. Perhaps we should ban all users that have an email or disclose it in Wikipedia - who knows what horrible things they are doing through email messages?

I am sure all of those would greately improve Wikipedia. Ninguém (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Situation going out of control

Well, yes, I think this new section title pretty well describes what is going on in articles about hyphenated Brazilians. Foolery of all kinds is being reinserted, wild conflations, unsourced and missourced assertions with no connections to reality, etc. I have been trying to revert these absurds, but I cannot do it alone, against someone who ignores all attempts to discuss the issues civily, and only uses Talk Pages to insult other people and harrass editors. So I am calling for administrative action. Please. Ninguém (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Foolery of all kinds is being reinserted, wild conflations, unsourced and missourced assertions with no connections to reality, etc"

Which ones? Ninguém can't point one.

Tell Ninguém to stop removing informations from articles, like he did to over half of

Tell Ninguém he is not the owner of the articles, and nobody is. He's not the one who decides which source is outdated, who is Portuguese Brazilian or not or if Rio de Janeiro represents the whole Brazil. Tell him that Gaúchos are not of Portuguese descent, and that his is only part of his own imagination. Opinoso (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to open a discussion about the subjects in Ninguém's talk pages, but he removed my attempts and called it "garbage". So Ninguém cannot complain that I don't discuss with him anymore, since he broke my attempts.[13] Opinoso (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can remove anything from his own user talk page, for any reason or no reason. He says you can take it to the article's talk page. So take it to the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing over "Freyre, Gilberto. Casa-Grande e Senzala, Edition. 51, 2006 (2006)". I tentatively infer that this is the 51st and "2006" edition of Casa-Grande e Senzala, published in 2006. I am not familiar with this work (the en:WP article on it is not merely unsourced but uninformative). A quick look in Worldcat shows that it dates back to 1933, if not earlier. (I have no idea of how much of it has been revised since then.) I see no contradiction between calling a book published in 1933 "great" and calling it "outdated". And calling it outdated need not just mean that its coverage stops too early; it may mean that it reflects the thinking of well-informed thoughtful people of the time but of course fails to reflect discoveries and insights made thereafter. -- Hoary (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling a book "outdated" is a not a good reason to remove informations. Opinoso (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It is, if the information is outdated.

Even Wikipedia seems to know that Freyre is no longer the cutting edge of Brazilian anthropology, as its article on racial democracy shows.

I still want to know what is going to be done about Opinoso's unending personal attacks, harassment, etc. I have been trying to be polite, but there is a limit to the amount of abuse I can reasonably stand, without politeness being confused with spinelessness and stupidity. And apparently Wikipedia allows this kind of vile behaviour, taking no action against bullies, so why would anyone make a point of being polite? Ninguém (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If a source is outdated, this is an excellent reason not to use that source. If you don't even understand this, Opinoso, you should not be attempting to edit an encyclopedia. -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see this at "AN/I". -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary. Ninguém (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinoso

Well, you know very well that I had two long disputes with Opinoso in the article about Brazil (one about its history section and the other about ethnic groups). I wanted to give you my moral support since I know how absurd he can get. You must wonder how could he still be around and must feel powerless seeing him geting away will all bad things he does. I believe now you know how I felt back then. And no, I am not being mean with you, I sincerely care about it since I know very well that feeling of unfairness that you must have on you right now. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to see this at "AN/I". -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I archived

As you know, I also have no qualms about the restarting of that discussion.

I see that Opinoso was warned by Gwen Gale. In my opinion, the lenience continues. He has been editing Wikipedia for about 4 years - and these were four years of misreporting of sources, fights and insults against other editors, false accusations of racism, trolling, and general disruptive behaviour.

It is way time for something a little bit more earnest. Ninguém (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

In Lecen's Talk Page, you address me in the following way:

By "the veiled threat", do you mean this? I took it to be no more than a confused and silly comment. Come come, let's not get personally sensitive. (For a sense of perspective, take a look at

this. You're accused of fantasizing about, or being proud of, or not being proud of, your [human] ancestry? That's nothing: I was accused of canine ancestry and -- so far as I was even human -- neurological damage. The more malodorous it was, the nuttier the writer appeared and the more I chuckled -- although I would have appreciated brevity.) Forget the editor and think of the edits. And if sources are being miscited or misquoted, let's hear about this. -- Hoary (talk

) 14:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am getting tired of this, Hoary. Wikipedia is an awful joke as an encyclopedia, and I certainly cannot save it, either alone or with the help of the few editors that I know who care about actual improvement. I don't need to come here, I am not paid for doing it; the only reward I would expect is minimal respect for my contributions, which are earnest, as informed as I am able, and always open to criticism. Instead, I am systematically abused, and when I complain I am told to take it easy. I am blocked for doing what is right, and imbecile bullies are warned for their irresponsible and ignorant behavior - and this is a progress, because a few months ago it seemed they were actually rewarded for what they call "reverting vandalism". Not good, and if it doesn't change I will probably seek other things to do, and allow Wikipedia to continue misinforming its readers and disrespecting its contributors. The only thing I can actually do about it, I already do: whenever anyone asks me about Wikipedia, or cites it as a source for some information, I tell them that they should not trust Wikipedia, because idiocy is rampant here, at least on the subjects I know enough about to recognise idiocy. Ninguém (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an awful joke as an encyclopedia, and I certainly cannot save it, either alone or with the help of the few editors that I know who care about actual improvement. There's certainly a lot of truth in that. As there is in much else that you say. One problem is that you and Opinoso appear to the casual reader of various talk pages to be somewhat similar: he objects to your edits, you to his; each of you cites sources -- or denounces the misapplication or misquoting of sources -- that are in a language that, unfortunately, most people hereabouts don't understand. Putting aside the relative quality of your edits, it's clear from even a slightly longer look at talk pages and article histories that there are big differences between your approaches, but a lot of people, harried administrators among them, aren't going to get that far. Indeed, it's arguable that an an administrator ought not to look: if one editor (X) has rightly or wrongly been told not to comment on another editor (Y), and if (rightly or wrongly) Y has not recently been given a stern warning for misbehavior, and if X then refers to Y as a troll, then X may have his knuckles rapped, purely for violating the instruction not to comment on Y. ¶ So forget Opinoso. By this I don't mean that you should reduce the attention you pay to his edits. If he or anyone else presents the results of dated knowledge and theorizing (however commendable these results may have been at the time of first publication) as reliable sources, object. If assertions are sourced to unspecified parts of large books, object. If writing is misquoted or misinterpreted, object. But do no more than name the writer. If there's a pattern to this and the writer is not cooperative, then some other editor is going to join the dots and censure the writer. If this goes on, the writer may end up blocked. ¶ However, you'd better also be alert to merits in "the other side". I've seen the pooh-poohing of the claim that something appears in volume 6 or so of a book on the grounds that the book never ran to 6 volumes -- but a little "good faith" thinking quickly brings up the suspicion that "v.6" or "vol. 6" or whatever it was actually meant "6th ed". There can be reasons to present what famous earlier social theorists have said even if what they said was later discredited: after all, what they said may have been influential (for better or worse) on popular understanding; and also readers may want to read about the intellectual history of various ideas. (Similarly, I'd say that WP should present what

Burton said of love and what Freud said of dreams -- while of course not pretending that these are what scholars think now.) And it's even possible that your antagonist will come up with the occasional good point -- and if you show yourself as willing to entertain his suggestions on their merits, this will certainly help you if, later, some hasty administrator claims that you're merely mirror images of each other. -- Hoary (talk

) 10:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Good bye, and thanks for your help. Ninguém (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a great pity, as you improve articles (or at worst you hinder their deterioration) and I sense that a team with Lecen, Grenzer22 and a geneticist could work on these articles and improve them. Of course I'd hope that there'd be no opposition, let alone ad hominem attacks or other misbehavior from your opponents, but if there were serious misbehavior from your opponents while you'd been scrupulous yourselves, your opponents could and probably would be swatted. Take a day or two off by all means, but then please come back. Or anyway please refrain from announcing that it's open season for idiocy on a wide range of pages.

Meanwhile, en:WP takes a very dim view of sockpuppetry. If you have solid evidence for any recent sockpuppetry, let's hear it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What good makes my hindering of article deterioration, if Wikipedia is tailored to facilitate deterioration, and to make the life of fools like me, who attempt to hinder it, miserable? In order to stop the replication of ignorance, it is perhaps better to allow Wikipedia to deteriorate to the point of ridicule, when even schoolboys will easily realise it is totally unrealiable. In this sence, announcing that it is open season for idiocy on a wide range of pages is perhaps the best thing to do. "Vandals and trolls of the world, unite! You have a Wikipedia to win, you have nothing to lose. Except perhaps warnings... and "ninguém" (Portuguese for "nobody") is no longer there to hinder you!"

If Wikipedia wants to count with the work of editors that hinder deterioration of articles, it needs to give editors who hinder deterioration of articles minimal work conditions. Else, it must reconcile with the deterioration of articles. And perhaps with deterioration of editors as well - after months and years observing misbehaviour systematically rewarded, some may conclude that misbehaving is the right thing to do.

There have been quite recent ad hominem attacks - and other misbehaviour - from "my opponents", consistent with a four-year long pattern of ad hominems and other misbehaviour from the same opponents. Five or six consecutive days of relentless ad hominems and other assorted misbehaviour. They have indeed been "swatted" - with a warning. That was not good enough to convince me that this is a safe or sane environment.

Yes, I do have what seems to me quite solid evidence of sockpuppetry. Unhappily, it is old, January 2009. So I suppose it doesn't count anymore (and, yes, I have complained about it at the time - twice, to admins Ioeth and EditCentric, I believe, and it was, well, ignored). Do you want to learn about this, albeit it is so old? More recent - although less solid - evidence also exists, as can easily be seen in the history pages of Rio Grande do Sul and Spanish Brazilian, where we can find a few anonymous IPs whose ideas and editing style are perfectly similar to the aforementioned "opponents". Ninguém (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

en:WP is not safe or sane. It never has been. The content of the articles is unreliable. What surprises me is that it isn't much worse than it is.

No matter how much time I had, I wouldn't be able to do anything with old evidence for sockpuppetry. As for unconvincing (so far) but significant evidence, I just lack the time to follow it up. -- Hoary (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And, it being not safe or sane, I am probably right in giving it up.

As for the "suckpoppetry", that's fine. It also means that, while "en:WP takes a very dim view of sockpuppetry", it has no actal instruments to enforce such dim view. Ninguém (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't mean that. Evidence of old wrongdoing is not investigated (as you must know). Anyone with evidence of very recent "abusive sockpuppetry" can ask for a check by somebody who can see the IP numbers involved. Thus this, in which a single, multinamed backer of this remarkable person was shown up and got hammered. -- Hoary (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but this deals with multiple accounts, not with the use of anonymous IPs. Would the procedure be the same? As far as my experience goes, editing through anonymous IPs is only a problem when done in good faith; when used with shadowy intentions, it is always OK. Ninguém (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's under an obligation to log in. If somebody whose ID is blocked then edits without logging in, there's a problem. -- Hoary (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As for the vol./edition issue. Maybe in English there is a way that "vol. 6" can be easily confused with "6th edition"; not in Portuguese. It never crossed my mind that a quote like "O Povo Brasileiro, vol. 6" could refer to the 6th edition of such book. Maybe I am stupid. But I tried page 6, the chapter that would be number 6 if they were numbered, and, when I found an online copy, the sixth webpage of the several into which it was divided. None of those revealed the content that supposedly should be there, so I read the whole book. And the content was still not there. And yes, I have asked for the page, or chapter, or paragraph, or whatever other way to locate the alledged content, in this and in other similar cases; the most polite and informative answer I got was complete silence. Ninguém (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In English there's no way that "vol. 6" can be confused with "6th ed", or anyway by adults who are familiar with books. But I have good reason to believe that these days even university students (in Japan, anyway) are unfamiliar with books (which they view with distaste, as you or I might view a stranger's false teeth), while en:WP has no rule against editing by the uneducated or the very young. -- Hoary (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I mean, there is no way that "vol. 6" and "6ª edição" can be confused, in Portuguese, by people (of any age) who are unfamiliar with books. Ninguém (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, en:WP seems to welcome all kinds of editors, even those who I think shouldn't be entrusted with the editing of a parish magazine, let alone the most voluminous encyclopedia the world has ever seen. Yet despite the efforts of the drunk, the deluded, the immature, the senile, and the sociopathic, good articles somehow emerge and more often than not stay good. These need participation by new people. When they look at the talk page and see what appears to be a personal dispute (X accusing Y, Y accusing X) they're likely to go elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In which case I am probably doing more harm than good. Let the new people read and believe the usual distortions, and if they ever become tempted to edit the articles, be driven away by general misbehaviour and false accusations of racism. Ninguém (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In good articles somehow emerge and more often than not stay good, the "somehow" is misleading. They emerge and survive thanks to the efforts of conscientious writers, and thanks to the way in which conscientious writers eventually tend to overpower drunks, fools, etc -- not in all articles, of course, but in many.

My impression is that Wikipedia is increasingly becoming the world's first choice among works of reference. When I consider how bad much of it is -- quite aside from its bizarre biases of content, thanks to which some juvenile computer game may easily outweigh an entire civilization -- the idea that people take it seriously alarms and depresses me. But take it seriously they do.

I hope that people are well-informed, or at least that they are not misinformed. I've a hunch that despite your recent comments you think the same way. But if you're genuinely happy at the prospect of popular "knowledge" about south America being shaped by the intellectual heirs of Bouvard and Pécuchet, then I suppose you should quit. I'm not, so I don't quit. -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am of course not exactly happy at the prospect of popular knowledge about South America (or about whatever else) being shaped by people like Pécuchet or Bouvard; the evidence of my unhappiness at such perspective is the fact that I have long battled against their bouvardpecuchisation of Wikipedia articles, and that I have been blocked a few times by their likes. However, I am also not exactly happy about the fact that the oil business in Russia has blurred boundaries with criminal activities, and I am not going to Russia to fight against such problem. In other words, I am, while not exactly happy, comfortable with the idea that I am not Superman, and, if I see no real possibilities of changing things, I don't feel under any moral obligation to undertake something that increasingly looks like a Sysiphean task.

If Wikipedia wants good editors, it should strive to attract them. If it wants to get rid of ignorant, or malicious, editors, it should have procedures to recognise and get rid of them. What happens seems to be the opposite. Good editors are shown the exit door, and idiots with no knowledge except in the fields of misleading and insulting are trusted to the point that their demands against others are immediately complied with by admins.

And I have to consider also whether I am happy or not about the idea of Wikipedia becoming world's first choice among works of reference. I am not. Indeed, I fear I am more unhappy about this than about particular articles being shaped by particular imbeciles; and, consequently, I tend - at this moment, at least - to consider that discrediting Wikipedia as a whole is a better thing to do in order to avoid, or delay, the bouvardpecuchisation of the world, than fighting endless battles within it.

I'm going to think about this issue for some more time, and I am possibly going to come here to read some articles, and may even interfere in them (as I made earlier today, to remove a partisan comment on how neoliberalism made Brazil a thriving economy) occasionally, or write some comments in Talk Pages - where, at least, the risk of being utterly reversed is minor (one thing I am going to do is to follow your suggestion, and ask for some help about Andrea Rita Marrero's paper on the genetic origins of Gaúchos).

But my overall feeling is that this is a waste of time. Let's see what happens in late July/early August, when, without a doubt, we will have again some stupity being reintroduced into articles, and a few cretin insults smeared in talk pages. Ninguém (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that attempts (whether merely malicious or intellectually honest) to discredit Wikipedia are very unlikely to have any effect beyond making people more grumpy. (I doubt that they make people less gullible.) If Wikipedia doesn't merit being taken seriously, then what looks likely to take its place? Neither Citizendium nor Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español seems to be going anywhere. (I do like the look of RationalWiki, though. Here you go.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks, or not

Come on, Dreadstar, to accuse somebody of dogmatism and to say that this wastes time hardly constitutes a personal attack. Now, if our ever-irritating IP had followed this up by saying that his antagonist was full of shit or had the attention-span of a fruitfly or was the offspring of a hamster, this would be. Further, if you block somebody, you normally add one of

It was a personal attack, period. In this case I chose a personal message rather than

Dreadstar ☥

02:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your moving the discussion here, but if here is where you want it.... Whether or not it was a personal attack is a matter of dispute. You think it is, I don't. The personal message is of course fine, but it does not let the blocked person appeal the block. -- Hoary (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The user has received

Dreadstar ☥

02:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That's right, he wasn't. My "it does not let the blocked person" above should have been "it does not make it easy for the blocked person to". Well, the personal attacker can use this to claim that he was misinterpreted, to announce his contrition or, um, merely to blow off steam. -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Truly. I should have thought of that myself, what was I thinking? Withholding such hand-holding instructions might have kept us from viewing oh-so-interesting unblock gems such as these: [14], [15].

Dreadstar ☥

05:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

On the user talk page of the latter nitwit we read: This host, papa1.barksdale.af.mil, is registered to United States Air Force, and may be shared by multiple users in the United States military. The military do say the darndest things. -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Dunning-Kruger effect

You may perhaps enjoy reading this article: Dunning–Kruger effect. I certainly did. Ninguém (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And I did too. I'm now able to take very minor satisfaction in my low estimate of my own abilities. -- Hoary (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In the first comment here, it's suggested as a theoretical approach to making sense of the fondness among uneducated pundits for writing complete bollocks about language use. -- Hoary (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

columns by columnists

Thanks for cleaning up after my own clean-up at

Well, yes. However, if we took this seriously then the same logic would surely require at least two discrete comments, preferably by people who have their own en:WP entries, on each putatively noteworthy comment by Rich himself. This may well be possible, but the amount of work involved would be rather daunting. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Yes, it seems a bit much. I guess a good faith effort to be neutral and 'due' is more feasible. First Light (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

But a problem is that once Rich had the temerity to describe the US administration as it was, he got up the nose of its supporters, who probably still haven't forgiven him and might be eager to remove uncomplimentary remarks made by him from his article. So yes, it's better to bolster that article with references. -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll look for third-party sources for individual columns - you can see how much room there is for mischief by using his columns as a primary source. Much of what I found in the article was completely misrepresented. First Light (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Takashi Miike

Hi Hoary. This Wiki-observation may or may not concern you, or a page-watcher: Given that Takashi Miike is nearly totally unsourced, I'd feel wrong removing only the (inevitable) claim of Korean descent just added by an Anon... On the other hand, I'd feel even wronger removing all the unsourced material in the article without first digging in and actually rewriting it, and I'm too busy with other things to do that... Guess I'll leave it to the radicals on either side of the issue to battle it out... DVD-viewing-wise, I've been discovering the work of Hisayasu Satō lately, which I find, surprisingly, to be far less repugnant and much more interesting than I'd been led to believe... Dekkappai (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Simple first steps: "Unreferencedsection" and this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Simple for you, maybe, but-- necessary though it may sometimes be-- the thought of tagging an article repulses me. On the other hand, I'm looking forward to imbibing in Satō's

Hmm, I wonder how Mrs Dekkappai (and the bambini?) will enjoy imbibing it with you. With a less unhealthy alternative to popcorn, I hope. ¶ There are huge problems in researching matters of Japanese "popular culture". (I did take a quick look for books on your pinku interests in a bookstore the other day. I couldn't find anything specific to the pinku, but I nevertheless formed the impression that a lot of the "literature" on recent films is mere bloggery in dead-tree form.) I have no solution, but I'd like to work on incremental part-solutions. Just one of the component problems is that even when there is a good web page, this is likely to be short-lived. With this in mind, I've recently increased my use of WebCite, adding the URL of the archived version in an SGML comment after the link to the original page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mme. Dekkappai has many good points, but an appreciation of fine splatter cinema is not one of them. I have hopes that the young one may develop into a connoisseur, but as far as gratuitous violence goes he hasn't yet graduated beyond Howard, Fine & Howard yet. I'm afraid I'll fly solo on this one... My repulsion for tagging articles, by the way, stems from a delusion I have which very few around here seem to suffer. I have this recurring fantasy that there is someone out there somewhere who reads the crap we write (the crap in the mainspace, I mean), and that notes to editors on these articles will be nuisances to them, at best... Thanks for looking into pinku. Oddly enough, I find the best sourcing to be in English (the Weisser tome, and the Sharp book.) No less than Naomi Tani herself prefaces the Weisser book by saying that no comparable work exists in Japanese (though that was 1998.) Similar to some elements of U.S. pop-culture, I suppose, which have been "discovered" by the French before us yanks really learned to respect it (Jerry Lewis notwithstanding)... I keep meaning to look into WebCite, and will probably kick myself in the ass repeatedly once I do, for not using it earlier. I'll get around to it eventually... Dekkappai (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The articles are indeed written to be read, and not to be rewritten. Also, the fact that other crap not only exists but has its awfulness stay unremarked is no excuse for the addition of fresh awfulness. And readers ought to be able to see for themselves that articles are unsourced. ¶ However, people do take seriously the content of WP itself (and not just the sources toward which it points). I think some reminders to them of unreliability can be salutary. -- Hoary (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

True. But readers can see that an article is unsourced by that article's lack of sourcing. I'd think a reader unable to determine that on his/her own is highly unlikely to grasp the significance of the relevant tag... Wikipedia's general unreliability should be more of an overall warning, like a "May contain offensive material" notice-- a big flashing red banner at the top of the page: "Warning, this site is written by anonymous know-it-alls and blow-hards. Ignore anything not sourced, and carefully check up on anything claimed to be sourced before believing a word of it." I've seen editors of certain wiki-philosophies completely bury an article with tags and banners (while, naturally, making no effort to address the concern they bring up-- too busy tagging, you know). Even as an editor, I pay them no attention other than thinking, "Someone who doesn't like this article has targeted it for deletion..." If I care about the article, I'll just work on it, without even looking at the specifics of the dozen banners at the top of the page. What I'd prefer is if editing tags were visible only to logged-in editors. Oddly (considering most editors in my field oppose this idea), I have much the same preference as regards to "adult"/pornographic content-- should not be censored, should be available to all, but should have some sort of warning, or a token "I am over 21" click. Just enough so the kiddies don't get accidentally "eww, icky-pooed" and the outraged prudes have no one to blame but themselves for their outrage. Dekkappai (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

They can see lack of sourcing from, well, the lack of sourcing, but many do not. I infer that many think: Wikipedia either is reliable or it isn't; it's not as obviously bad as are many of the alternatives (with their animations and ads) and it calls itself an encyclopedia so, well, it must be OK, mustn't it? I often see an article that's highly dubious but is on a subject that might well be worthwhile (I often don't know for sure) and that is being edited vigorously: tags may nudge the author(s) toward improving the article. This rarely means tagging anything and everything that can be tagged, and sometimes I act in this way even when I know for sure that the article is potentially worthwhile. -- Hoary (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt that there are sometimes good uses for tagging, but I think they are abused by some editors as a substitute for actual work. What I see far more often than someone marking something for work is something like THIS in which the reader is informed that the article reads like an essay and needs copy-editing... The tagger didn't even lower him/herself to editing them in manually, but used a script or a bot... Does a reader-- not an editor-- really need to be informed that an article can be expanded/improved/better-written? It seems to me like inserting a title card into a Hollywood film. "This film could be better-directed. In this sequence the editing is particularly bad. The actor here is clearly incompetent, somebody call the casting director. Costumes are a bit wrong, aren't they? Could someone get me a cup of coffee?"... All true, maybe, but the audience doesn't need to see it. It's for those working on the film... Dekkappai (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop the other shoe on Naked Blood-- found it rather enjoyable, actually, in a Grand Guignol way, of course. This Hisayasu Satō character bears watching. I was prepared for the notorious scene of auto-cannibalization, but what caught me off guard is that, I think, it is staged as a tribute to Chaplin's The Gold Rush (and why the Hell doesn't that article have a poster image??!!! This calls for work!) Don't want to give any surprises away, but when the tragically lovely Yumika Hayashi pulls her eyeball out of its socket, twirls it on the fork with the veins hanging down, then pops it into her mouth, I swear Satō must have had the shoestrings-as-spaghetti from Gold Rush in mind. (See: THIS Chaplin poster-- in Japanese, appropriately enough-- for reference.) Too bad I can't add that reference to the article until an "authority" cites it... Anyway, when you're in the mood for something a little, ah, different, give it a look-see... Oh, and I see someone finally got off their arse and cited the Miike/Korea thing. Just out of a desire to remove that damned tag, no doubt... Dekkappai (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments

No. Quackwatch is widely known to be an irreprutable site by someone "claiming" to be an expert, when in actuality the author never even passed his boards. Learn about the topic more thoroughly before making your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.0.158 (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice you're now making changes without approval by others. Isn't that hypocritical? Or is that too big of a word too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.0.158 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You're merely duplicating what's at User talk:99.146.0.158. -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Clayton College

A discussion was started on external links. Perhaps you should read it. —Mavery94 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Hoary, I thought I'd share this with you since Ronz keeps removing anything I write on the Clayton College discussion page. I'm sure if you read what I wrote you'd find it on topic. NCAHF v. King Bio found Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett to be biased and lacking in credibility. The legal system finds them lacking in credibility, so why should a link to them be any different? We're just laypeople, are we not? —Mavery94 (talk) 24:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's make that: Interested sources in complementary/alternative medicine say that a court case found Barrett to be lacking in credibility. If you can cite any disinterested, reliable sources that say the same thing, you may wish to present these on the talk page of the article about him. In the meantime, disinterested, reliable sources approvingly cite Quackwatch, and therefore so may Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The blp attacks

These attacks against Barrett on Wikipedia go back to at least early 2006. They should be removed immediately per WP:BLP. Editors adding them are subject blocks per WP:BLP and to arbcom enforcement per

Cheers!

You're right. Far be it from us humble editors to stand in front of the juggernaut, considering that it probably cost big bikkies. — e. ripley\^talk 02:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)