User:Hoary/Archive04

Vade Mecum
Do you know if the published date is 7th May or 5th July? Thanks. Rich Farmbrough 13:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It took me several minutes to think what you might be referring to . . . but the PDF files of my "Vade Mecum" are (with the single, 19 April exception of 017zzz.PDF) dated 8, 9, and 10 May 2001. The latest is 018indx.PDF, at 00:16 of 10 May. Does this answer the question? -- Hoary 05:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * PS I've just had a look at the PDF of the cover page. This reads in part, "Version 07/05/2001". There's nothing else on the cover page about the date. It's a British publication, and because of both this and the filedates it's pretty certain that 7 May was intended, and not 5 July. This edit of yours and this one risk confusion with an earlier or later edition of the same year, if such an edition exists. -- Hoary 06:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking that out. Much apreciated. Nice to get things right. Rich Farmbrough 09:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've just taken a look at your most recent changes. Very well done. Thank you! -- Hoary 10:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm nice really
I half regret writing the sequel too, but it was a bit mean. It just seemed every time I looked at my watch list that day - there he was droning on and on. Anyway, I see it has made no difference at all - thick skinned that bloke! Giano | talk 09:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And not just that day! But my own gut feeling is that it can be good that such people are writing blather on Wikipedia: they could instead be concentrating their energies behind the wheels of powerful motor vehicles, or (for Americans) the triggers of -- ugh, I don't want to think about it.
 * I'm just back from Vilnius (and elsewhere in Lithuania). Do you know it? If not, I recommend it, on architectural, gustatory, and financial grounds. -- Hoary 10:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Maltese Nobility
I regret to inform you that many thing are being done so as to prevent deletion of the article of Dr. Gauci. I am not a noble and never applied for such a thing in my life.

They are inventing things so as to prevent deletion. Action requested.

Maltesedog 09:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * M-dog, your "Action requested" suggests that you think I'm an admin or similar. I'm not; I'm just a spadeworker.


 * The one or two people behind that article do indeed seem to be becoming more desperate. But in doing so, they're damning themselves and the article that they seek to protect.


 * If on the other hand you see real dirty work going on before I do -- notably, vote-tampering -- then do please let me (or others) know about it. -- Hoary 10:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding my position. There are a series of articles linked to the article Maltese Nobility on such persons who own a number of sites online, claiming to be noble (which they might be), but the articles are of no value and notability. 11:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I just can bear it any longer. See Charles Gauci's reply in the afd page. This is intimidation of a wikipedia user. Maltesedog 12:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there a method to detect whether Charles Gauci, Tancerville, Preziosi etc. are the same person .. how can we get to know IP addresses. I think preziosi for example doesn't exist.. it was just an added user to support the argument.. i don't know but have to check Maltesedog 14:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes there is a method, but it's not available to you or me or even to administrators. Some level of person above administrator -- offhand I forget the term -- can do it. Understandably, they're often asked to take a look. I too think that there are no more than two people behind those three names, but so far this has not become an issue. If the article survives AfD thanks in part to a belief that these "three people" are all different, then you start thinking about asking for IP numbers. But you still hold off as long as possible. The people who can give you this info will want to see that you are very cool and collected and have a very good reason to know who is who. Whether or not you are understandably upset, you are visibly upset: now is definitely not the time to ask for IP numbers. Instead, it's better to put your energies into revising all your posts so they look as polite, reasonable, coolheaded, as possible -- because if this does develop into a bigger battle, people will pore over your old posts as well as "theirs". So stay cool! -- Hoary 14:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like there are two new counts which are writing who never wrote before.

"international"
Hi Hoary - I wrote the below on the WP:VP policy page and wanted to post it here to you also:

American music, movie, and video games companies always say "international" to mean "foreign" in the context of sales territories. A press release will use the word correctly when it says "Devo is an international success", but within the company they'll always talk about "USA" and "international" sales. I believe the reason is that the word "foreign" sounds a little negative to many people, and this was an attempt to come up with a politically correct synonym. You're absolutely in the right to resist this, of course. Tempshill 17:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

With reference to your comment on Giano's page: I apologize
Looking at the link on Giano's page leads me to believe I am the person about whom this post relates, from the context of the diff:

Apology if there was offense: I am the person about whom this is written:

Those comments were in relation to my concerns of editors refusing to totally adhere to policy -even in instances where they were well-intended mistakes. (We can change policy when we don't like it, and that is sometimes being done in regards to my concerns; Even if I don't like the changes, it is better to have it clarified.) Anyhow, I am sorry if I offended anybody, but I simply did not feel that the "process" was working in all instances -or in all facets. Maybe I went a little bit overboard, but let me be clear: When I am told to seek consensus on something, and then I try to seek consensus (in, say, an informal vote), and then have people not tell me their thoughts & help "form consensus," but merely complain -heck, anybody, might go a little "overboard," but all the same, I apologize if I offended anybody. Additionally, I've been a tad overworked and am going on an informal "Wiki-break," and wish to leave this place better off after I have left.-- GordonWatts 18:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

International
Hoary, can we please talk about this before we try to make any widespread changes? I don't understand why you all are trying to imply some type of US bias as that is not the case at all. But there are other reasons why they need to be seperated OmegaWikipedia 05:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As you may have noticed, I've just changed Love Takes Time, and I'm not going to undo my changes. But fair enough: I'll pause now, as you suggest. I still don't understand if the Billboard charts include Canada; if they do, they actually seem to me to be more "international" than the Australian, British, etc. charts with which you follow them. I'm not opposed to separating Billboard from the rest, but this use of "international" seems bizarre. Please convince us all, here. (Invite your friends, if you like!) -- Hoary 05:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to keep "Love Takes Time" that way article wise, fair enough, but I really do feel that the charts should remain they are. What exactly are you trying to suggest with Canada? It's sort of in between, but not really part of Billboard (especially the way people are using it nowadays). Hmm, well, I'll think of something later to reply to the pump, but I don't know if I'd get a fair chance there. Everyone in the post seems to be non-USA,and seems to be criticizng the USA (including you! lol) to no end. It seems almost...what's the term for it? I have nothing bad to say about non-USA countries, which makes this dismissal of everything USA peculiar.


 * The terms works both ways too. I don't remember the country, but I know there is a non USA country, where Mariah Carey charts, and she is deemed as an international artist. Like I even said, international is not meant to be insulting, and if you got that notion, I'm sorry. I've used the interntaionl monkier for articles like I mentioned before in the Canadian Complicated, and another example is the UK Candle in the Wind 1997. It may seem biased because I mostly do American artists, but my application of this usage is universal and fair. OmegaWikipedia 10:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I've never thought that "international" was insulting, and if I suggested this it wasn't deliberate. I now understand what you mean by "international"; it's something like "foreign from the point of view of the artist". While understandable and not wrong, this is not the most obvious meaning: it's a bit confusing for those who haven't already read a lot of these articles.


 * I've no objection to the word "elsewhere" in a "USA"/"elsewhere" division for (unambiguously) US artists, "Sweden"/"elsewhere" division for (unambiguously) Swedish artists. As I've said, I don't think this division is useful elsewhere. (Is Björk really Icelandic these days? Et cetera.) But if you want the division, then { (i) [name of a nation] + (ii) "Elsewhere" } seems clear. -- Hoary 13:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The solution in the table here for example seems fine: unambiguous and reasonably concise. I'll continue with it. -- Hoary 23:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with that edit there. It looks really bad imo and loses emphasis on the charts. I really think the charts have to be seperated. What exactly is confusing about international? I'm not a fan of the elsewhere term either. Maybe we can think of another term to compromise on for the emphasis of the same word? OmegaWikipedia 03:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You've hinted at a reason for splitting the chart info into two, but haven't really given one. Meanwhile, what's confusing about "international" is that it suggests something bigger than a single nation, whereas each chart position listed within "international" is that for a single nation -- just as the chart positions listed within "USA" are. Or on other words, neither "Australia" nor "UK" (to take two examples among the five or so I've seen so far) are intrinsically any more "international" than "USA" is. Yes, you say these "international" nations are international from the POV of the artist, but is this likely to be important (or even apparent) to the reader?
 * As for a loss of emphasis on the charts, this wasn't my intention but if it has happened it's all to the good. Detailed chart info is pretty trivial. Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor is an (awful) article on another commercial product: it could just as well go on and on about sales in various markets and at various times as compared with the Canon 50/1.8 lens, the Nikon 50/1.4 lens, etc etc etc, except that these facts aren't available (and few people would be interested). Just because Billboard, etc., does churn out this "information", I see no reason why WP must slavishly reproduce it in such detail. Still, I've been restrained: I haven't cut any of it whatever, but instead have tried to put it in as compact a form as possible. -- Hoary 03:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I've listed several reasons (or maybe theyre on the other page), but for one reason, the Billboard charts are very interconnected, and relationships can be seen between the charts, wheras the non USA charts are somewhat of an entity of their own. And Hoary, I thought we were still going to discuss the matter? And I thought you said you were OK with the seperation of Billboard and the rest, that you just wanted a different name for the international section? I think its definitely going to be important and apparent to the reader. And the international part isnt meant to emphasize a single nation, but the sum of their parts, just like USA represents the sum of the USA.

How is this info detailed? And what does that really have to do with that camera? And who are we to say what would interest people or what would not? And Why would you want to remove all chart info? Many music articles on which I havent worked on have have this chart info- its hardly what I would call "detailed". I think there seems to be a bias against "pop music" here sometimes. If I wrote an article about a more "dignified" matter like on economical beahavior, a poltician, a scientific theory, anything else, I'm pretty sure there wouldnt be all this questioning. (Unless people here often get accused of adding too much scientific info) OmegaWikipedia 11:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I was a little premature in continuing to make these changes. "My bad"; I'll pause in this. That aside, I'll reply to your points more or less in the order in which you make them. Yes, my main objection was and is to the use of the term "international". However, an alternative is not obvious, and fwv (I think it was) pointed out that the need for a term would disappear if the two tables (for MC, USA and the rest) were simply merged into one. You'll note that "my" single tables still kept the Billboard info together: this was in one set of rows, the non-US info in another. Pretty easy for the reader to make comparisons among the Billboard charts, I'd have thought.


 * I really disagree with your sentence "And the international part...." but I find it hard to believe that you're serious here so I shan't bother to lay out the objections.


 * The info is detailed because it's about charts that seem almost indistinguishable from each other. But OK, some people seem to be interested, and this is why I haven't suggested (and am not going to suggest) that it should be deleted. But you said somewhere that my edit seemed to deemphasize the chart stuff; this charge doesn't worry me at all.


 * (When I seem a bit vague in this message -- "you said somewhere", etc. -- this is because right now I'm (unusually) writing offline between modem accesses, so I'm not in a mood to look up what was written on various talk pages.)


 * There's something in what you say about an antipathy toward pop music articles. If I had autocratic control over WP (and no, I don't want such control), I'd say that in principle they're welcome (indeed, I've started some off myself, though the musicians have never had much commercial success). And of course they are very welcome, whatever I might think about them. However, in practice they strike me as bloated. Let's take your example of a politician for a moment. A large percentage of politics is, well, politicking: the popularity of a politician is important to his or her success. Of course, there's nothing quite equivalent to Billboard charts for politicians (or anyway there isn't in the countries I know of), but there are frequent polls: "Are the taxation policies of Mr X fair for the nation?" "Are you satisfied with Mr X's leadership of the nation?" (or similar) etc etc. One could develop and append large tables of how ratings have changed over time. But this doesn't happen. Meanwhile, we all know that MC had sufficient popularity and income for most of her career; whether she was getting a little more or a little less adulation or money from this or that song seems pretty unimportant to me compared with answers to the questions "What was the song like?" and "Was it any good?" Also, there's a huge amount of "she had wanted to work with X", "she and X got on fine", etc etc -- but (aside from damaging enmities, clandestine love affairs, etc.) an article on a politician generally limits itself to what that politician has done and/or said.


 * You've put a huge amount of energy into the articles on MC and I appreciate that. Also, you do have a sense of proportion (unlike at least one fan here of Ashlee Simpson). And of course I recognize that a lot of people have a lot more interest in MC than I have. But nevertheless I'd encourage a bit more whittling away of stuff that really isn't needed. And when something does deserve to be shown, then let's show it as efficiently as possible, avoiding for example a tabular column in which every cell presents the same datum (the song title).


 * I've now been up 19 hours. Enough! Good night. -- Hoary 15:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I keep searching the three pages about this discussion about that alternative word (besides International and Worldwide), and I can't seem to find it. I think you hit it on the head when you said there's nothing quite equivalent to Billboard charts for politicians, and you listed what is important to an article about a politician. The same way, I think with these articles, we have to say what's important to them. Just like the actions and speeches of a politician are important to an article about a politician, an article about "pop music" needs its important aspects - details on the making of the song, chart positions/performance, etc. I really emphasize the remix section too on Mariah Carey, because she usually resings them, or has significant information to them. But I know for someone like Kelly Clarkson, I note if the section is important or not, and here we don't need a section on her remixes; all someone does is remix them. Maybe I wouldnt completely rule it out, but she wouldnt need a lengthy section like the ones from Mariah. So basically look at the project and see what it needs: a politician nees so and so, and Mariah articles need so and so...I might look a politicians article and be like "Hmmmm, yeah thats kind of long, is that info really neeeded?" But I have to step back from this position and realize it is needed, even if I don't see why its needed. To borrow a quote, Wikipedia is sort of in the eye of the beholder. Am I making sense? I think I'm as tired as you are when you posted the other comment, so I hope I dont sound like I'm rambling LOL.


 * Also, I think the tables should be left with all their titles, for the sakes of consistency. Many (probably most) singles today have multiple versions charting. For the sake of consistency, I know it would look weird if I was looking through a single chronlogy of an artist, and saw the charts shift back and forth between the two versions. So for that reason, could we please leave them titlewise the same? Which Ashlee Simpson poster are you talking about? I'm not sure I know who youre talking about, but that sounded sort of like a backhanded compliment LOL. But thanks, yeah you've been a very reasonable person too. Other people who have raised some issues about these articles are just......well, one of them is just aggressive and does illogical things, another one is jealous because "pop" articles get more coverage than "R&B" articles (which itself it a bit mystifing since Mariah is an R&B artist too). OmegaWikipedia 13:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It's now late here again, but I'll persevere.


 * I'd better not name the Ashlee Simpson maniac. He (she?) is sensitive about criticism.


 * MC's music is called R&B, but this R&B is very far from what I think of as R&B (Elmore James, Big Maybelle, etc etc.). Maybe the person you mention at the end thinks the latter kind of music is underrepresented in WP. The standard answer to that would of course be "You think so? Then feel free to contribute more about it." After all, more kilobytes about MC don't mean fewer kilobytes left over for Big Mama Thornton (etc.), because WP famously is not paper. However, WP is also not limitless: the more gigabytes of data there are, the more of a strain there is on the servers. I'm certain that a lot of the articles about pop can and should be compacted a little.


 * Let's suppose there was an article Chart performance of Mariah Carey's singles, and that this presented tabular information about each song, one or two tables per song, one song after another. It might indeed be confusing if the number of columns changed between tables. On the other hand, if each song has its own table(s), there seems to be no point in preserving columns whose every cell says the same thing.


 * Also, the point I was trying to make was that chart positions aren't so important to songs. Of course they're important to the record label, as it's all money, and of course the differences among "great success", "moderate success", "insipid performance", etc. are important to the artist and a lot of her fans, who else cares? The last "chartable" CDs I bought were by Martin Newell, DJ Shadow and Barry Adamson; I know Newell sells only modestly but I haven't a clue about the others and don't care -- what matters is that the music is good, and that they get enough money to continue doing what they want to do, that's all. Radio stations, etc., quote Billboard charts because they have to fill up time with something and charts provide a certain ersatz competition and excitement, but how many people really care? -- Hoary 14:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well I think in terms of contemporary R&B she definitely is one. I also work on articles by other R&B artists too. Of course, I'm going to probably deal with modern stuff I listen to, not older music. You just cant please some people it seems. Hmm, well what is the relative impact of pop music on Wikipedia servers? I think because we deal with music, we see these pop articles more often, but I'm sure in the big picture, these articles barely register.


 * Well, I know if I would be looking at a chronology, I would be very confused. Take MC for instance. Two versions of ISB charted, and it in turn (not following the limited DYKWYGT which had no charts) was followed by Heartbreaker with only one charting entry. It was followed by Thank God I Found You which had two chart entries. Followed by another entry, which had split charts (which in itself is another discussion). But the point is, theres an equal amount of double charting today, and it happened often in the past too, so it would be weird if I looked at an artists chronology and saw it flip flop every other single.


 * I beg to differ on your last point. I'm not a record label and I'm not a fan of many of these artists, but I am very intrested in their chart stats. And I know others who are too. I think the difference is that I focus more on mainstream music, where these stats are very imporant, whereas your artists are more about other factors. I'm sure there are people on both sides who definitely agree with both of us. Like I said before, we have to look at the situation. For those artists, you mentioned, detailed chart info would not be right, but for mainstream artists like these, the charts are very important. OmegaWikipedia 15:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, MC is R&B as the latter term is understood today.


 * Most of these songs (or most whose articles I've looked at) chart with a single title. For me, it wouldn't be weird if the design of these charts flipflopped from one article to another.


 * How are "these stats very important" for mainstream music?


 * But let's assume for now that they are very important. How are they rendered less easy to understand when Billboard stats and non-US, non-Billboard stats are presented as two sets of rows within the same table? -- Hoary 21:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

S/N Ratio? Huh? Hmmm, well what chronology are you looking at? I think a lot of them havent been updated yet, but if its a song that came out lately, chances are it has more than one version charting. The ones Ive been woking on lately besides Kelly C and MC like Gwen S and Beyonce have most of their singles with double entries. Well, I think it has caused much confusion, I know in the single articles, at least 5 people (not including me) have already reverted another user's attempts to combine the tables and/or voiced their complaints about how it looks confusing. I think like I said before, you have to look at the charts from the eyes of another person. Like take instance Jennifer Aniston. I dont follow acting. If I see her page, I might be like OK, Im going to combine the table for her TV acting with her movie acting into one big table called acting. Not suprisingly, the people at the Aniston entry will probably not be thrilled with the idea, and they'll find it confusing. The same applies here. OmegaWikipedia 12:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see why these people would be upset, and I may have a higher estimate of people's mental agility than you have. (Just how thick are the readers of WP?) As for the matter of how the design of tables would wobble around if the column for the song title were omitted where its cells were all the same, let's look at MC's singles, from the start:
 * Vision of Love: no column necessary
 * Love Takes Time: no column necessary
 * Someday (Mariah Carey song): no column necessary
 * I Don't Wanna Cry: no column necessary
 * There's Got to Be a Way: irrelevant to the discussion (and no column necessary)
 * Emotions (Mariah Carey song): no column necessary
 * Can't Let Go: no column necessary
 * That's as far as I got; I haven't read any more. Don't you sense a certain pattern here: that no column is necessary? -- Hoary 05:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late response, Hoary. You hadnt responded in days, and I thought you were gone for awhile. Well, I think I dont think its mental agility, so much as it is clarity. But yeah, they're upset and most people seem to prefer them seperated. Yeah, many of Mariah's early singles had only one version chart. But later on, most of her singles had multiple versions charting. I think we should stick to one format for the sake of unity across these singles. It would be confusing if I was looking at a single chronology and it went back and forth. Like if you look at "Shake It Off", I didnt include the name of the song for the video charts, because videos (to my knowledge) have never had the remix really chart, so its ok, not to mention the name. But for the singles where they go back and forth, it would be better to presented a unified pattern by not seperating or eliminating that column. And like I said, most current singles today have multiple versions charting. Like if you look at Beyonce's singles, all 4 of them have had multiple versions chart (Actually the information isnt there yet, but it should be added later). Also is it possible for us to talk to some posters who keep editing the tables? They dont realize that we are in discussion about the matter. One poster even had the nerve to accuse me of stalking him because I dont agree with the edits. (He fails to realizes that Ive been editing these articles for months and theyve been on my watchlist long before he even came to edit the articles). And then he went around and talked of something that would only be known if he had been stalking my edits. OmegaWikipedia 19:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, no, I didn't reply for longer than you didn't reply: no reason for you to apologize.
 * I'd reply now, but I'm too sleepy. Also, I see that Mel has started a new discussion -- one that's actually much the same, really -- at the foot of this page, and that you've already replied there. So I'll reply there, but a bit later today. -- Hoary 22:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Gauci
Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Gauci has been closed as a delete by another admin. Is there something else I can help you with? --Ryan Delaney talk 20:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, my office needs tidying really badly, and I have to put a pile of corrections into the contents list (mostly in Japanese) of a half-century of an obscure academic journal -- er, no, I suppose I'll have to do these myself. But thank you for the offer! -- Hoary 23:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your words of support at my RfA. I particularly appreciate it when people put real thought into their votes, as you did. I will likely try to be somewhat less gruff in the future, but, well, no promises on the outcome. Anyway, it is never my aim to offend. (Never? Well, there may be an exception or two.) Be sure to let me know if I ever cross the line, anyway. -R. fiend 15:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

50s Pop Culture
Thanks for the barnstar! It's been there for three days and I didn't even see it (and such a cool blue hue :). Also, thanks for all your thoughtful input on the EP article, I think it truly helped. Wyss 23:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Nah, I didn't do much for EP, and you deserved the piece of tin yonks ago. The trouble was, you gave me one -- for real work (on the tiresome Ennis), but work similar to and much less than what you were doing. I could just as well have given you one then; but then and later I thought it would look too chummy: "Ooh, Wyss gave one to Hoary, so now Hoary's given one to Wyss!" Or so it might look to the petty-minded and aggrieved, anyway; of course most of us don't take these things so seriously.


 * How do youse all find the time? I'm supposed to be working for my salary, but these days I've been spending a lot of time sorting the huge number of photos I've taken in the last two months. I suppose I should upload some to WP (certainly I have a lot of photos of things for which WP has no photos) but curiously I've much less enthusiasm for uploading my own photos than for editing articles on other subjects in which I really have no interest . What would a psychopathologist say? -- Hoary 14:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * She might say you're risk aversive :) Yep, I would have been "horrified" if you'd given me a barnstar back then, 'cause one way or another it would have lessened yours! Find the time? I keep my watchlist open in another window and when I need a break from whatever I'm doing I'll glance at it. So many of the articles I watch are controversy/vandal prone, however (sigh), I wish I could spend more of that time quietly writin' new articles. Wyss 15:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Queen of Hip-Pop
To answer your questions from the "Queen of Hip-Pop page," Chevrolet Suzuki is a car company in Japan. I know in the US, they are separate companies but in Japan they are apparently not. I don't know the actual circumstances with the companies and their dealings in Japan, I just know that Chevrolet cars are released through Suzuki motors in Japan. You can check their Japanese website for more details. I'm not sure if they have an English page though.

As for the song "Queen of Hip-Pop" you really have to read the translated lyrics. However, it is my intepretation of the song and on that thought, I probably should edit that out. NATEamx 11:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You do indeed seem to be right about the Chevrolet–Suzuki relationship: Chevrolet Cruze, sold by Suzuki Motor Corp. Sorry about that! -- Hoary 14:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Just to say thanks for supporting my RfA. Please let me know if you see me screw up anytime. --Doc (?) 19:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Anon IP
I see you're taken notice of the anon IP blanking his warnings. If you have a moment, check the talk page of Willmcw for a message from me related to this anon and his suspected sock puppet. I'd appreciate your opionion. I'll watch this page for a reply. paul klenk talk 04:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

warnings aren't blanked, they've been archived and saved.216.175.112.9 06:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I count about 9 or 10 reverts, easily, by this user, in an hour or two.  paul klenk talk 06:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Time to call in an admin, I suppose. -- Hoary 07:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not over yet; I've just had to protect the Talk page, which is an odd thing to do. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Association of Foreign Titles in Malta
You are right hoary. The article isn't of interest not even to us Maltese. I have place for deletion an article on Stephen Sant Fournier -- have a look at it. Maltesedog 11:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like the user is thinking we're against him when we only want to remove the article. He even placed me in the ban list for some time (later removed by someone) because of placing his articles in the afd. Very undemocratic indeed Maltesedog 20:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Which "ban list" would that be? -- Hoary 05:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Tables
I like your edits on these articles (I don't know if you realise how many there are though? It's a mammoth task), but I wish that you'd come back to the tables too. I'm trying to cope with a posse of aggressive adolescents with a tendency to alternate between dogged stubbornness and hysterical abuse (well, as I said, adolescents), and I seem now to be on my own... --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Mel, I think most people have agreed that the tables look better seperated. And I think it is a bit premature to accuse these editors of being aggressive adolescents. By the same token, the editors who keep trying to push onto these edits are being aggressive themselves. Both parties need to relax and discuss the matter. OmegaWikipedia 19:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment on editing, Mel. OmegaWikipedia is the only person I've dealt with and he/she has never been aggressive, hysterical or abusive. But OWP has (you have) been doggedly stubborn. OtOH I suppose I seem about equally doggedly stubborn in OWP's eyes. OWP's and my attempt at a discussion has been congenial but it doesn't seem to have got anywhere or even to look as if it will do so. Energy permitting (and it doesn't), I might start an RfC on the issue of tables. If that were done, and if it were conclusive one way or the other, some other person more energetic than myself might create a bot to spider for all of these pages and fix them en masse; mere humans would be no match.


 * Yeah, it is that way. You do seem equally stubborn in my eyes, but youre right, you probably see me as that too. And I hope this doesnt sound like a backhanded compliment, but Hoary, you're probably the classiest person I've ever had a disagreement with. Other people Ive dealt with make threats against me, insult me, or even lie when we disagree, unprovoked. You're a real class act and I respect that OmegaWikipedia 19:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, if either of you is missing pop-unrelated AfD fun, surf on by the closely interrelated threesome Steve, Zim, and Testy.


 * (Typed to the strains of early Dinah Washington.) -- Hoary 06:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at for a prime example of what I meant. Meanwhile, I'll look in on the AfDs. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Systemwars.com
Hi. You voted to delete Systemwars.com and it was deleted. However, Tony Sidaway has decided that your vote and the consensus that agreed with you was insufficient. He has recreated the article in violation of policy and relisted it for deletion at Articles for deletion/Systemwars.com (second version). Please take a look. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ar15.com
Hello. This page was listed for deletion, deleted, but was since recreated. I noted this when I was reverting edits that I felt to be NPOV. What is the official policy for this? --Irixman 20:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. The official policy, if I can restate it in terms that the denizens of ar15.com might appreciate, is BLAMMO, we "take out" this article. Or more concretely, one of us slaps   or similar on it. (I've already done this.) -- Hoary 02:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * All done! They can't recreate it anymore. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 03:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd ask you to allow the page to be recreated. I'll admit the articles that were deleted were crap vanity posts and probably should have been deleted, but the entry itself I feel is notable and worthy of inclusion and I volunteer to write an appropriate NPOV entry.

Referring to Websites, the are three guidelines for inclusion/notability:

A website's impact can be demonstrated by meeting one or more of the following criteria:

1. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better 2. Having been the subject of national or international media attention within the last 2 years 3. Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members

Admittedly, our alexa ranking is in the 21000's, fine, but we have 82124 registered members, 81930 with activity in the past three months. At peak activity, we had 60,000 unique users accessing the site.

I'd compare the role of ar15.com within the firearms community with that of gamefaqs.com. It is one of the premier resources for hands-on firearms information (not just websites quoting manufacturer statistics) on the internet, primarily because of the amount of activity we generate.

We have been extremely active in activism for 2nd Amendment issues, which has often lead to our quotation in the media as a benchmark of the opinions of gun owners in America. I believe it is a fair guess that the site is the most active firearms community on the internet. We have been cited in the media numerous times (I'm looking up the articles now; most occurred around the sunset of the Assault_weapons_ban in September 2005, and the passage of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, earlier this year, and so aren't on google news right now. In the meanwhile, here is a more recent article: Kilgore picks up NRA support

Let me know your thoughts and any objections you may have.

--Mmx1 19:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, now you're starting to sound persuasive. Thank you! I suggest that you copy your comment above and post it wholesale into the article's talk page (which can be freely written to, even while editing of the article itself is prohibited). Edit it to taste. Then list the article at WP:VFU, linking to that talk page. Alternatively, don't bother writing on the talk page and instead add your reasoning directly (but as concisely as possible) to WP:VFU. -- Hoary 21:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Tables (again)
Well, I stopped reverting in an attempt to cool things down, and encourage discussion of the issue, and the result has been the swift reverting of all the articles affected, silence from those doing the reverting, and an RfC against me. Do you have any other ideas? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Right now (sleepy, tired, connected via modem), none at all I'm afraid.


 * RfCs on users have always repelled me. It's not the principle, it's the practice. People seem willing, even eager, to search through dozens of old edits to turn up those that will prove their point. I'm not. I've always thought that if I were ever RfC'd (if that's a verb), I'd just drop out. Still, if somebody else is unjustly RfC'd (as you've been), that of course is a different matter. I hope to say something coherent perhaps 14 hours from now.


 * In the meantime, go easy on referring to the [users who seem to be] uncritical popcruft inclusionists as a homogenous group. It's true that they seldom either seem to disagree among themselves or seem willing to argue their own points, but I sense far different degrees of willingness to accept the points of the other side (and far different degrees of civilness). At least one I shan't name seems to want to revert anything you do just because you do it, and anything I do because I'm A Friend Of Mel's; another I shan't name seems willing to accept almost any deletion I make, aside from tables.

-- Hoary 13:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks &mdash; and yes, I agree that they're different in approach (if not always in the result). The former of the two to whom you referred is in fact nothing to do with it, but is on a somewhat unhinged campaign against me (as you know). --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Hoary
Hoary, FuriousFreddy is acting up again and being hostile over a debated matter. He seems to be making insults and threats over a situation without really stating what his specific problem is. His behavior even drove someone to quit Wikipedia today. However, I'm very willing to talk it over, but seeing as how he always seems to rant and ignore my points, I'm wondering if you would mind helping us settling the matter? Maybe you can get to him? Thanks OmegaWikipedia 04:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A quick look through both your respective talk pages suggests to me that he's clear enough about what the problems are. However, what are problems for him aren't problems for you. So I suppose from your PoV he's stubbornly banging on about phantom problems, and from his you're stubbornly refusing to recognize very real problems.


 * Am I going to join in the fun? At this point, no. I agree with much of what he says about the articles you are enthusiastic about; as for what you and he say about the articles he's enthusiastic about, I've never seen these articles and don't have time to look at them now.


 * Has he been hostile? In some places, maybe. However, I note the ending of what is (or was when I looked) your latest contribution to his page: Guess what though? The world has changed, and the times have changed. You need to get used to it and stop living in the past. Doesn't sound very amicable to me. If you really don't want him to ignore your posts, you might add a friendlier coda. -- Hoary 07:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hes definitely clarified the matter now, whereas when I wrote the message on your talk page he was sporting empty claims. Anyway, thanks for your opinion Hoary. I tried to maintain a polite feel throughout the conversation, but after dealing with his hostlity for a long time, and with it being late, it was only natural for a few snarky words to come out.....Although you're right, even if he is being a jerk, that does not mean I have to act like one OmegaWikipedia 07:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not "acting up," nor am I being a "jerk", "ranting", or anything else you accuse me of. Is there any particular reason why you feel the need to "tattle" and try to get someone to "save you" from me? I'm sorry that I'm not going to just sit back and let you do whatever, but I'm not going to do it. This issue needsto be dealt with. --FuriousFreddy 08:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, no, I'm not tattling like you claim. And Im not asking him to save me. If you knew anything about him at all, youd know he tends to favor your sort of views. I asked him to be a third party to mediate and compromise the matter. If I wanted someone to talk to about the matter who would be on my side, I would not have talked to him. OmegaWikipedia 08:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC: Pop music issues
See Requests for comment/Pop music issues. --FuriousFreddy 05:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Omega Wikipedia has been invited several times ot undo his edits, to no avail. Also, there needs to be consensus on certain issues and matters. Oh, the edits to the RfC subpage. Nevermind. I didn't know exactly how to file this in a situation like this (it's not really--or at least not fully--a user-conduct issue), so you are more than welcome to help properly arrange it. --FuriousFreddy 12:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Invited to do what? To agree to cut out chart info and to merge covers? This is a very unreasonable stance. By that same token, you have often been invited to undo your edit without avail. OmegaWikipedia 20:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OW says at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pop music issues to move his comments if neccessary. I have done so. As far as the formatting, I was under the impession that the discussio nshould look like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Magic: The Gathering this rather than a user-conduct RfC.--FuriousFreddy 13:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

A Message to Hoary
Freddy, will probably be reading this, and at this point, I am quite angry, and don't care. But I am trying very hard to restrain myself, but Im not a saint. Hoary, even after you left a message on my talk page asking me to edit the article, Freddy decided he HAD to change the articles without giving me the courtesy of letting me what he was doing and me approving. You even asked him and he ignored you. While I dont mind him doing this, he should have had the courtesy to explain himself first, and not just do whatever he felt like doing in lieu of your opinion or my opinion OmegaWikipedia 20:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are you angry?  If I've responded the wrong way, my comments can be moved. Thanks. I apoligize if I edited in error. All I did was move them. --FuriousFreddy 22:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Omega - it's not your call, nor is it Hoary's or Freddy's. There are ways to format an RFC.  That's all there is to it.  People have to be able to read it and understand what's going on.  Once things make it to RFC it's no longer a private matter, it's a community matter.  Guettarda 22:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

re: frustration
Yes, the issue is more than worth being brought to RfC...but is it actually going to do anything? In the first 24 hours, I see little in the way of possible resolution or any attempt towards one; there's already been personal insults and vandalism. I'm frustrated, feeling sick to my stomach, and angry at myself for trying to always "be a hero", so to speak, and trying to fight for the betterment of the Wikipedia. Everyone I know now knows about my problems, and they all say that I should walk away because it's not worth it. That edit probably doesn't even begin to express just how frustrated I am. --FuriousFreddy 02:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's stuff like this that you say that makes you wonder why people get angry with you. So are we villians then? OmegaWikipedia 08:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've never said that you should walk away from it, and I'm not saying it now. You made a rational decision. Stick with it, until/unless deterred by rational argument. When provoked, stay cool, if necessary by turning off the computer for a couple of hours or longer. -- Hoary 02:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll work and cut it down. --FuriousFreddy 02:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I cut it down, revised it, and restructured it. --FuriousFreddy 03:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Problems
Hoary, the RFC has some severe problems which were not properly dealt with (see the talk page). Therefore I have done a revert (note: that is temporary) until the issues have been resolved. OmegaWikipedia 08:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, no you misunderstood, Hoary. I don't think I (nor anyone else in this matter) can revert until the other users know whats going on and that theres a clear consensus on what to do on the talk page (since Winnermario seems to disagree too.) Like Annittas had his comments moved, and no one got his permission . And then WScott seems to (IIRC) have had all his/her comments removed for some reason. It seems like Guettarda made an oversight, but Guettarda also left a message on this user's talk page, so Im not sure whats going on with that. I also find the discussion to be a bit awkard, and Im not sure how I feel about it, but I think the other matters should be addressed too. OmegaWikipedia 10:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hoary, Annittas and WScott should be given the courtesy of being let known that their comments are being moved with permission just like you asked of me. WScott especially, since his comments were placed in a weird position and cannot be moved as easily. That would be an incorrect assumption on your part too, as its not about the content, but the structure behind it. (Btw, this has nothing to do with my comments, I dont mind you moving those at the bottom). I dont want to get into a revert war either. But I think parties from both sides will continue to revert, so a protection on this page might be needed (unless both parties can cool down to discuss the format) OmegaWikipedia 11:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Adminship
Guettarda is indeed an admin but I'm not. -- Hoary 13:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe you should do something about that ;) - Guettarda 13:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That smiley has no nose, Guettarda. It feels strange having my arm twisted (if that indeed is what's happening) by a smiley with no nose. Oo-er, KDE tells me it's 22:32 and I'm still in my office. Time to knock off for the night and go home! -- Hoary 13:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Er, while I'm here, I thought that I'd mention that I found the above a rather ambiguous response, and maybe encourage you to think about the matter. Jkelly 21:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the invitation, if it is an invitation. The short answer is: Not till January at the earliest, thank you. I'm about to move house, and I must drastically reduce WP activity for the time needed to chuck out, pack, move, unpack, etc. I don't think it's necessary to announce anything like a "Wikibreak", but I am doing such things as winnowing my watchlist every day. (It's down from 1200 to 900 and falling.) -- Hoary 05:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Holding off
Since you're around (and don't seem to be shy about offering opinions), perhaps you could take a look at Talk:First and Last and Always? Thanks! Jkelly 02:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't a clue. I think I might have heard of the band. I always thought "alternative rock" was a meaningless label attached for marketing purposes, perhaps because I've heard several too many "alternative" bands whose music offered no alternative whatever and was instead just a slightly different mixture of the same old cliches. As for "gothic", that's black costumes, white faces, and kitschy typefaces, no? I did read in the article on the latter: It is almost guaranteed that associating any one of those early bands with Goth may spark angry protests from fans who are not goths and don't want their favorite band associated with them. Sometimes even the band itself does this (The Sisters of Mercy for example). (My underlining.) It's unclear what "this" refers to, but I'm not going to start to edit Gothic rock, because if I did so I'd feel compelled to rewrite the jolly sentence The signer relocated to Montreal and is still active as a musician but the band, for all intensive purposes, is now dormant (again my underlining). Meanwhile, the argument in this talk page seems to be civil and well-informed; I can't see how it might benefit from any "input" from an ignoramus such as myself. -- Hoary 03:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway. Jkelly 03:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Dodgy French
Actually, I think that Winnermario means "Je ne dis-la pas. Est-elle une langue belle ou horrible?" or something along those lines. Any urgency for clarification wasn't obvious to me. I believe it to be a response to a couple of edits that I made to User talk:Winnermario about WP:CIVIL. Jkelly 03:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sic Bar
Who is CSS? Giano


 * Count Salvatore Siciliano . -- Hoary 11:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

My views on pic. v .illus are recorded for posterity here User talk:Tony1. The problem with the page is, and always has been (long before the current FA debacle) is keeping on subject, and how in depth to go with the social history etc which always governs architecture (not a lot of people know that!) and other country's architectural history.

I've rather resigned myself to it not being featured now, but I do want it to stay acurate, this was not happening when someone was moving the placing of picture refs about, as they often ended up next to an item the picture did not show. The only other quibble I had was that the intext refs to pictures are no longer in itallics, I ittalicised them so people like me (who, when only half interested in a page) could just scan a page, and easily find see a picture ref.

I'll have a look at the talk page, I'm sure they did not used to be like that. It is important though that those three images stay in that section.

Its a nice subject though, untill I was 10, I thought the world was like that, then I saw NY, and thought it the most wonderful place, and Ragusa should be demolished and rebuilt in NYs image. Giano | talk 12:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Somehow my life has not been wrecked by reading beyond the spoiler. No one, but no one os to touch those charactoristics, i've even written a final bullshit paragraph to make the last picture fit in (yes I know I could have made the pictures smaller, but their detail is indistinct enpugh as it is.  An Italian editor has offered me some more fantastic images, but there isn't room for them. So I may leave you and Tony to finish this off, while I go and write Sicilian Baroque II. Giano | talk 13:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Cool (song)
I noticed that you voted object on the featured article nomination for Cool (song) a few days ago. The article has gone through a number of substantial edits since then, and it would be appreciated if you were to read the article again to see if you would consider changing your vote, or offer further advice on how the article could be improved further. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 14:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll look at it tomorrow. -- Hoary 15:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible FAC
Hoary, I had an article that I had written that got nominated for FAC awhile ago. It didnt go through because I didnt do the references in time. But I am thinking of nominating it again. If I do that, you know how I feel about charts. Is it possible that if you look at it, you could judge other factors and give your input on that and not object it just because of the charts? I'm willing to make other changes, but the charts are something I strongly feel would ruin the article if merged or reduced. OmegaWikipedia 07:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That sounds a very reasonable request. I'll look at it, other factors permitting. Right now though, I seem to be going down with a cold, so no promises in the short term. So let's do a kind of a deal here: you don't hesitate to ask (or actually just to specify which article it is); I don't hesitate to say no if for some reason I can't comply. -- Hoary 12:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Problems in Palermo
I'm sorry if you felt the comments were overtly critical of you, there was so much editing but the time I decided enough, it was almost impossible to tell who had done what. I felt the whole raison d'etre and emphasis had changed from what I felt it should be,   The whole thing had become a nightmare, its too big a page to keep reading through and spotting every misleading edit, as soon as I read it again, something else sprang out. Then there was the language problem. I have written too many architectural reports to bodies equally eminent to Wikipedia to know that architecture always "illustrates",  buildings are always built "circa". I could go on. I was less than amused by the "major surgery" as it seemed to me to be more a case of "euphenasia". Then yesterday afternoon I was labouring away, and came across yet another hidden in the text instruction, I suddenly thought: No! I don't agree with this, I'm not putting this in just to get it through FA, because someone who knows sod all about the subject says so. The final straw, was last night while editing with an "in-use" a message arrived saying it should be "The" Sicilian Baroque, I had just removed The - a small point - but I'm out. In its complexities architecture can be as difficult as mathematics, and I would never edit there. There are editors Wetman for one, who know their way about the trickier terms, and pull me up, and please may they continue to do so.

People checking my grammar - no problem, I have secretaries in real life moan and groan and resign because of my grammar in all languages, but they don't touch the accuracy - not twice anyway, nor like the other nameless person do they just switch words needlessly about until it reads like an essay from a  lower streamed class in a inner city comprehensive. Bishonen, very kindly, checks the grammar and word order of almost everything I write before it leaves user space, so all people usually find are minor copy errors, and grammar which is a matter of their oppinion. Bishonen, in my oppinion, is the finest and most educated writer here. Quite rightly no one owns their pages, but if no one cares for a page or policies it then that is detrimental, but I'm not going to spend the rest of my life watching it hacked and distorted - so it's off the watch list, it has about 10 sub-pages and it's own category, I was going to expand them all too with the spare pictures, but I think I'll give the subject a rest for a while.

Pages like Sic Bar are too specialised to ever drag in hundreds of voters, five is usually good, six is brilliant, but it was badly received from the word go, but for a page with no criticism of content, fact, one minor POV, and an image that was permissible but the objector just wanted it out (which I did - it's back now), the battering it has had was out of all proportion, just because people did not like the prose. I think it was Geogre who said it had more facts per square in than anything else, this is an encyclopedia not an easy read manual in "cooking by pictures"

When I took Buckingham Palace up to FA standard (took two attempts) I accepted that it was always going to be vandalised, or have someone's reminiscences of Granny at a garden party in 1954, and it was always going to be impossible to police, but quite frankly there's a lot of info on it out there. Sic Bar, is different, it is the only comprehensive study on the internet or elsewhere. The only book on the subject equal to it has been out of print for years, and costs in excess of £100 second hand, so you see the page must be right, and right at all times. I realise now that can't happen on Wikipedia. It can't be deleted, so I must leave it alone.

This is why I have decided no more, I can only write in my own style, I've had 9 featured articles, most of which by the end of the week will doubtless be on FARC to be demoted or Australianised. Ironically when I did the three New Zealand architects to FA the Kiwis loved them - funny old world. I'm sorry you were caught up in this, but too many were all copyediting at the same time. I see Tony is very cross! I'm sure he'll get over it and soon find another page desearving of his remarkable talents. Giano | talk 08:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!
Refer to header. --Winnermario 00:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Re FARC problems
Hi Hoary - I am up and about, but only for the next five minutes or so - and to be honest I've never had any dealings with FARC, so I'm not sure exactly what to do here. I've left a note on the administrators' noticeboard, so hopefully someone who knows what he's doing in this sort of situation will be able to help. Sorry I haven't been able to help any more than that, but someone should be able to... Grutness...  wha?  06:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No please edit it, it's fine.( Just please no basic vocabulary) all your edits are fine, I spent an hour diffing the history yesterday, not a pretty job. I see its already on FARC - Sorry you are caught up in this. I see there is a huge row on the RFA page, I was going to oppose him, but that would make people think I'm as spiteful as him - see how the mood takes me today.  Believe me there is little pleasure in the seeing this promoted now, or great point in writing future mammoths.  PS the buldings in Quattro Canti are curved, canted is when there is a distinct angle, its called canti because of the angles in the piazza not the buildings (I think) ;-(. Giano | talk 06:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

PS:Whats Grutness doing here, he's an old friend of mine, hepled me out enormously with Francis Petre


 * It sure looks to me a bad faith nomination, but I'm afraid I can't really do anything for now, unless there is some new evidence that crops up. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd assume good faith and take it as an isolated incident for now. But if the people involved in the FA/RFA end up in arbitration, then you may want to raise this as part of evidence (though seem unlikely). - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 07:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Barococo siciliano
Artisans existed only by patronage of the upper classes, so I expect they starved in garrets somewhere, allthough many of them "lived in" with the aristos, in my opinion they were peasants in the back streets, but I suppose in English one could call them - I don't know you tell me me "members of the flower orders"? The less fortunate" "the great unwashed". Put it this way if you were Sicilian and noble you could do what the hell you liked.

2nd question. Sunnier will do, that was in one one of the books, if I'd been designing a city I'd have had the main street out of the sun, that's why people pay extra to watch a bull fight out of the sun - anyway ours not to reason why - just write.

I've checked on Quattro Canti. Blunt P 31 describes them as curved, I should probably have described them a convex or concave, but one of the problems of dyxlexia is I have a mental block over which is which, the one we want is curve inwards, but its only the facade the building is not a crescent. Its looking very nice, I wonder how long you are to be left alone, I'd put the up if I were you. I probably will edit it again sometime, lets see what happens, at the moment speedy delete seems a good alternative.
 * It's OK, it's fine, although why you are doing this, I don't know, the hatred for the page Tony is stiring up makes me so wish I had never written it. The refs for theremarkable Marbling are Blunt, the last small palazzo Blunt does not name, has a picture but no name, written in the 60s you see when Sicilian aristos would run a 100 km from having their name or houses in print, one of the problems the subject is still so little researched.  I think I've seen it and it's callae Palazzo Famigliani, bit I'm not 100%; and (as I explained before on Tony's page when he wanted to insert something) if it's not in a book, it can't be in the page.  Do you know when Palazzo Pitti was being featured, he supported, but with the comment "more references I think" how can you add more references when you have already written the page, I switched  a couple of external links which had used the already listed refernces (I should have stood my ground with him then).  He's threatening to leave, and on one page asking someone to dispose of the  body when he goes, God and they called me dramatic.  I referenced the pedestrian quote, as it's one of his big moans on his rfa, fortunatly they won't catch me out on content and facts.  Sorry to moan to you, not your problem. Giano | talk 10:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Favour - peer review
I just put The Waterboys up for a Peer Review. Given your interest in improving articles and in music, I thought that your opinions would be especially valuable. Thanks in advance. Jkelly 18:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you overestimate my interest in music, you certainly overestimate my knowledge. I'd never heard of the Waterboys, but I'll quickly add that this almost certainly says a lot more about my ignorance than about any lack of fame. (Yes, that reminds me: I hugely prefer between the Waterboys and his solo work to between The Waterboys and his solo work: is this really a minority opinion?) Still, I'll look at the page a few hours from now. (Oh, and thank you for the other message above, to which I've replied above.) -- Hoary 06:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * PS Done. (I resisted the temptation to change "The Waterboys" to "the Waterboys" thoughout.) Um, I know nothing about this band, but to me the claims for literary content, etc., are all dissipated by the stuff about jets of water on the stage: this seems to be in the Great Tradition Of Rock Obviousness (cf This Is Spinal Tap). -- Hoary 09:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

&#123;{foreignchar}} vandalism
I've added sockpuppet templates to the user pages of all the foreignchar vandal accounts I know of, to make it easier to keep track of them. They currently link to User:Diacrit and Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Diacrit, but that can be changed if and when someone finds out who the real user behind all these sockpuppets is. I'd suggest centralizing discussion of these vandal accounts to User talk:Diacrit. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Good move. Thank you very much. -- Hoary 02:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The Waterboys becoming a disambig?
Cross-posted I think that, in this case, a disambig header is reasonable. Note the lack of the definite article in the Japanese film title. The film should probably get a redirect from Water boys, as it doesn't have one. If the matter is really contentious, we can discuss it further at Talk:The Waterboys. Jkelly 08:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I do seem to have overlooked the business about the article. (Whoops!) Anyway, I've no objection to the present arrangement. -- Hoary 09:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again! ALKIVAR &trade; 07:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Our Property and Our People in Acmar International Group
Why are you planning to delete those things in our property and our people in Acmar International Group. Acmar (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it's mere advertising. Please read, or reread, the message that I posted on your talk page a few minutes ago. -- Hoary 10:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

AFD a time-consuming process
You claimed nominating for AFD is time-consuming. You should visit the user scripts WikiProject, or try my afd helper which, although it is at a sort of experimental stage, nominates things for AFD in with a single click and typing a message. Just as useful it has something that makes voting on AFDs much quicker. Ask if you need help installing it. It made nominating the other Acmar articles very quick. jnothman talk 10:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the tip. I'll do just that. But perhaps not very soon, as I'm trying to wind down my WP involvement for the short/medium term, while I move house.
 * I used to visit NewPages every day and therefore spent a lot of time at VfD, as it was then called. Cumulatively, it became depressing. The obvious self-promotion was simple enough, but it was the degree of self-importance, so many people's certainty that what just they and their mates were doing merits an encyclopedia article -- that got to me. And the whimsy ("If you don't think this is funny, you can't have a sense of humor"). I followed a suggestion of Giano's and started looking less at AfD and more at the other extreme, FAC. -- Hoary 11:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rfa?
I'd like to nominate you for an Rfa,my Wiki-mentor...will you accept it?203.124.2.17 10:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry for that IP,my account was logged out (dunno what went wrong).That's my IP,and if it vandalises any articles,inform me, please,because I don't want people to blame me for using a sockpuppet.P.S.That's not a sockpuppet,I don't use it at all!Tdxiang 11:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Damn. Because I was about to say: "Heh heh heh, I'd love to say yes, because I'd love to see everybody's astonished reaction to a nomination placed by a (red-link!) IP number." However, I'd then have continued with what I'll say to you, Tdxiang: Thank you but no thank you, because I am about to move house, and during this process I don't want to feel obligated either to respond to what people say during the RfA or (if people actually voted me to become an admin) to respond to pleas for my help as an admin. Maybe next year. But thank you very much for your faith in me. -- Hoary 11:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll be waiting,dude!I'll be waiting!Come anytime!Anyway,do comment on my report card that's on my User Page!--203.124.2.17 11:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Aiyoh,not again!I signed out!And yes,you can comment on my report card...Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 11:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

2005 civil unrest in France
time to ban User:Swollib, he vandalised 2005 civil unrest in France. --secfan 06:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Swollib
I blocked this account. This is quite odd, it's not a new account and seems to have a history of valid contributions for quite some time until now. -- Curps 06:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good. He deserves a block, if only for wasting twenty minutes of my life. (Not to mention your time, others' time....) -- Hoary 06:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)