User:Hoary/Archive08

Oh
You might like to comment at the WP:GA/R for Agrippina. Cheers, Moreschi 14:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a good article [lowercase]. I glanced at the toing and froing over it and I think I digested the gist of the complaints. I then looked again at the article and I have to say that the dissatisfaction is not completely unreasonable. Consider for example In modern times, Agrippina's critical reputation has rested high among Handel's early works and indeed among his entire career as a whole: either one of "entire" and "as a whole" will suffice, "rested" doesn't sound quite right to me ("remained"?), and "career" seems less likely than "works" (a word that of course is better not repeated so soon). Rather than make a conditional comment about the article ("It's fine, except that/although...."), I thought I'd go through the article making changes and then comment. Some of my "improvements" may of course be unwitting degradations; feel free to revert. -- Hoary 14:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whack away. Enjoy! Cheers, Moreschi 14:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Once you've done that, of course, feel free to pass it. Or fail it. Or do neither. 'S up to you. Cheers, Moreschi 14:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes yes I'll whack away -- except that acute need of sleep and the demands of the "real world" must come first. While you're cursing the churlish comments you're getting over Agrippina, consider the hell that Badlydrawnjeff is going through. -- Hoary 15:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Christ, poor bastard. One useless peer review there - and then all the stuff that should come up at peer review comes up at the FA nom, and you have to scramble horrifically. Anyway, see you round tomorrow - I'm GMT/exact Wikitime. I look forward to your comments/corrections, and sweet dreams. Cheers, Moreschi 15:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Someday you need to cme up to Massachusetts...
...so I can buy you a beer. Thank you so much for your help on the Babb FA. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Feeling generous?
Want to take a gander over at Mom and Dad and see what you might change around? I'd much appreciate it. Thanks either way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The demands of the "real world" are mounting up, and may hinder me in this. Can it wait a little? (You're free to answer either "yes" or "yes".) -- Hoary 05:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, that's not a problem at all. Take your time.  Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Photography Projects' names
Allo mate. You might be interested in this discussion regarding the names of the WP Projects History of Photography and Photography. What do you think of Girolamo Savonarola's proposition? Pinkville 00:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wotcher, mush.
 * GS is right, in a way, but jeez. . . . Well, see what I wrote on the project talk page. -- Hoary 08:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

1a
Hoary—I like what you did; reminds me of my deficiencies as a writer. If you don't like the acknowledgmeent, please let me know. Tony 03:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah, it's not a matter of deficiencies. You're a fine writer. The problem is I think rather that the article to some extent exemplifies what it writes about: precisely because you've done so much work on it, its lingering flaws are particularly hard for you to spot. This too doesn't matter; the only problem is of what happens when somebody is referred (very likely not by you) to the page and is in a truculent mood about it. &para; As you'll have noticed, we have orthographic differences. I find it hard to get worked up about a lot of the standard shibboleths. (And I tend to combine those elements of "British" and "American" spelling that appeal to me.) However, a comma directly after "i.e." or "e.g." looks odd to me; and while I'd be delighted to have a thin space fore and aft of an em dash, I greatly prefer a bog-standard (20 hex) space to no space at all. Still, it is your article..... -- Hoary 08:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * PS as for the acknowledgment, I appreciate it but I'd rather it wasn't there at least till I've gone through the article. Even in normal circumstances that would take me odd half-hours here and there across several days, but I am in very abnormal circumstances: desperately behind schedule with various "real-world" commitments. (Indeed, I really ought to close up shop here, at least for a month.) All in all I don't expect to do much more work on that page till 2007. -- Hoary 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Eugene F. Lally
68.225.228.235 added (the red-linked) "Eugene F. Lally" to the List of photographers today, and looking into some of this user's contributions (see here and here - and note a certain other user in the latter) it began to smell slightly fishy... There's a teeny little bit to be found about Lally via Google, though often from user-contributed sources, yet Lally is supposedly the originator of the idea of digital photography! What do you think? Pinkville 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Lally has made many significant contributions to society, yet I can't find his name in the Library of Congress Catalogue, though he apparently wrote numerous papers (including "Mosaic Guidance for Interplanetary Travel, which contained the first concept disclosing how to produce still photos in a digital domain", from Timeline of photography technology). According to the article Krafft Arnold Ehricke, he was (with Ehricke) the creative spark for the US space programme; he originated the consumer price index (see Consumer behaviour), etc. But left few traces of this work...? Pinkville 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't get very concerned about the articles that people hint that they might make. Yes, Krafft Arnold Ehricke looks very odd (starting with his very name); if Eugene F. Lally indeed turns blue, I'll view it with interest and a handful of "" tags to apply wherever they seem appropriate. -- Hoary 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough. Pinkville 11:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed
Well I have been banned from the Presley article. Bemusement best describes my emotion. I think I am done with Wikipedia for a while. Something just doesn't seem right. Regardless, thank you for your involvement. You strike me as a decent sort. All the best. Lochdale 04:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the process really fucked you over. (Why mince words about it?) I've been looking at it now and again with increasing distaste. If I stand back from this and look at the article and what came up in the RfAr, I have to concede that (i) your antagonist's methods had improved a lot since the time of the previous RfAr, (ii) perhaps his goal wasn't as simply horrible as I'd thought, and [sorry but] (iii) you had done some things you shouldn't have and perhaps should be censured for it. However, the way in which Bauder seemed to seize on the simplistic "User A added sourced facts, User B deleted them" (without consideration of what the facts were), the swingeing penalty proposed for this, and the way in which the little arbitrettes all dutifully followed the boss man -- they all seem grotesque or laughable. &para; For different reasons, I stay away from Presley and from anything that smacks of "arbitration". I hope some other people come along to sort out the former. As for the latter, I've decided to pay some attention to the "elections" that are going on right now. I'll vote. &para; Take a break from Wikipedia, yes. But if/when you feel like it (and I hope you do), please return to work on some other area. Or, perhaps better, forget areas and instead help here and there with articles that are already pretty good and whose primary authors have invited and appreciate help. Peer review seems promising. In the meantime, thank you for trying; I'm sorry it screwed up, but the sky isn't falling. -- Hoary 06:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comments and admire your optimisim! I think I am going to focus on Irish-related articles (with an emphasis on cleaning up some of the soccer bios) and I will also have a look at the peer review section.  I agree with you that I certainly made significant editing errors.  I put it down to hubris, inexperience and sheer frustration at the one editor.  I do not agree, however, that his agenda is anything other than malicious in nature.  I also think I may have suffered from Fred Bauder's issues with Ted Wilkes (and his many "alter-egos" it seems).  Not much I can do about that.  I do think, however, that they system is a little flawed as I don't feel that the arbitrators actually looked at the edits in question.  That said, this is still a volunteer site so one can't complain too much.  Thanks again for your involvement.  It was nice to know that I wasn't always banging my head against a brick wall!  Lochdale 17:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know about his agenda. I used to think it was malicious; recently I've started to wonder if he simply has a sort of tabloid mind, interested in gossip in general and sleazy gossip in particular. If it's the latter, maybe he's representative of the millions of goofballs who buy crappy magazines. And I suppose it could be said that gossip-obsessed goofballs deserve their own 'Pedia -- it's just not a 'Pedia that interests me. &para; Funny, all this would-be denigration of people by saying they resemble Wilkes (or even that they are Wilkes). As I remember him, Wilkes went over the top at times but in general was a fine editor. -- Hoary 15:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree with you that it is mostly a fascination with gossip and innuendo but for the fact that the user then tries to buttress his claims by reference to legitimate sources. This is what leads me to believe that he has a malicious agenda.  I didn't know Wilkes but I read some archies that show that he and Fred Bauder went at it somewhat.  Lochdale 17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1a
Hoary, I was delighted with almost all of your edits. Please go ahead; it's so nice to be on the receiving end of a good copy-editor with ... ahem ... strategic distance. I'm working on a little offshoot—how to find copy-editors—so that I can thrust it at FAC nominees who ask how they can locate good people. Tony 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Hoary. It just happens that you are in such a list (given by Sandy to Balloonman), and that I am in such a position! Tony and others consider (correctly I'm afraid) that Serial Experiments Lain is too poorly written to pass its FAC. Would you mind having a look and sharing your thoughts about it? Thanks in advance.--SidiLemine 12:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hoary, I wonder whether you'd mind having a quick look at User:Tony1/How_to_find_good_copy-editors—am I wasting my time? Is it likely to result in nuisance requests to good copy-editors? :-) Tony 12:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry SidiLemine, I appreciate your polite request (while wondering if I should go after Sandy with a blunt instrument * ) but despite (or perhaps because of) my (Top Secret) Geographical Location, I've got some sort of anime/manga block. How about putting it in this list? -- Hoary 13:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) &para; * NB This Is A Joke. [Note for people who are very solemn and/or thick. And the legal profession.]


 * Tony, your new page looks good. I may later post my usual list of tiresome niggles or my list of tiresome niggly "fixes", but they'd be incidental; it's an excellent start. -- Hoary 13:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) PS Um, do you have any blunt instruments with which to go after Sandy?


 * Thanks; Sandy has proposed a number of improvements, so it's still work in progress. Tony 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the advice, I'll do that right away. Please note that Sandy didn't point you to me for help, bu rather for help on Military Brats to Balloonman. Cheers!--SidiLemine 14:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Captions in 1a
 * Eight centuries ago, writing was such a rare and elaborate skill that it was displayed with great artistry. This Apocalyse manuscript shows St John's writing to the seven churches of Asia.

I'm no expert and lack the time to check, but my impression was that vellum or parchment or whatever the medium was at the time was hugely more difficult to procure in quantity than paper was in, say, the 18th century (let alone than it is now). It was also long-lasting, and there was an assumption that Biblical and similar writings would be just as valuable in the future as the present. Imagine that inkjet printers and even cornerstore photo marts didn't exist, and all we had was archival-quality photo paper, priced to match. Well, you'd be nuts not to focus your enlarger and time it just right.
 * I'm being dumb: do you mean that writing was displayed with great artistry not because it was a rare and elaborate skill, but becasue the medium was hard to procure?
 * Rather than saying anything, I'm speculating that because the medium was valuable and longevity assumed, writing was done sparingly and with great care: care with handwriting would have been obviously appropriate.
 * Perhaps: but now the caption is going to be elaborate ... unsure what to do.
 * Me too. Let's leave it for now, attaching a virtual question mark to it. When time permits, we can reexamine it.
 * The power of writing has changed the world. Here, Mahatma Gandhi writes at Birla House, Mumbai in August 1942, five years before India gained independence from Britain.

It would be good to come up with something that he wrote and that demonstrably had an effect. I'm sure that there is plenty.
 * Are you suggesting a quote or citation within the caption? The Gandhi article provides links, but wouldn't that be overkill?
 * A citation, if it could be done neatly. (I'm as opposed to overkill as you are.) I'd add the cite myself, if I knew what I should cite.
 * The Story of My Experiments with Truth? See this?
 * I skimread the former article. Probably inadequate, I know, but I got the impression that the book was reflective and highly regarded but perhaps not as obviously inspirational (or even "incendiary") as some others. Let's think a little more about this, too.


 * Grammar at its worst.

No! In "Recruitment at It's Best" [ugh!], the grammar is fine. It's the orthography that's screwed up.
 * "Recruitment at it is best?" The grammar is wrong. I agree that you could see the added apostrophe as a spelling issue—or a typo—but it's the grammatical option that I've chosen, because that's more apposite to the surrounding text.
 * Try saying "Recruitment at It's Best" and then "Recruitment at its best" out loud. They sound the same: a strong hint that grammatically they're identical. The former is indeed not intended as "Recruitment at it is best" (if it were, there would indeed be a grammatical error); so it's just a matter of orthography. (NB I don't like it any more than you do.) The problem (?) is that normal people (as opposed to aphasics, etc.) make very few grammatical errors in their first language; other perhaps than in the eyes of the most died-in-the-wool prescriptivists (on whom see such books as American Tongue and Cheek.)
 * Maybe you're winning that one. But say "might of" and "might have" or even "might've" at conversational speed. With an ellided "h" and a schwa, they sound identical. Is it a spelling mistake when this person writes the first instead of the second?
 * Yes, I think it is. Native speakers of English learn to say "might've" before they learn to write it. It's an interesting one as somehow I don't think many would write "Could you of left early?" yet I can't think of a principled explanation why this would be less common than "You could of left earlier". But anyway I don't think speakers would regard it as possessive. More thoughtful speakers would note its interchangability with stressed "have" and would link the two, but I've a hunch that stressed "have" ("You could have left earlier") is acquired later and could be understood as separate. Thoughtful writers might be expected to wonder what part of speech "of" could be within "You could of left earlier", but then again English offers lots of many apparent anomalies; for example, though we learn that "very" is an adverb that fortifies an adjective ("very hungry"), we also see it used to modify a noun ("the very bag I was after"), so I don't think it would be crazy to infer that "of" doubles as a nonfinite verb form. [I'm sleepy now; I hope this makes sense.] -- Hoary 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hope you guys don't mind if I crash your party with an example re: normal people... make very few grammatical errors in their first language... Consider the increasingly common American formulation, "if I would of..." for "if I had...". The genuinely erudite Michael Franti even had this perplexing lyric in one of his songs, "if ever I would stop thinking about music and politics...". No particular point, just a morsel to chew on. Pinkville 19:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You've left me a bit confused, Pink. I'll agree that the lyric sounds odd to me, but (focusing away from the trees and instead to the forest) there seems to be considerable haziness among native speakers of English [may I abbreviate this to "L1 English speakers"?] about conditionals. Without actually bothering to consult Huddleston and Pullum's Cambridge Grammar, I'll speculate that these are in some sort of diachronic flux. For even syntax does change over time: note how any verb could be moved for an interrogative in Shakespeare's time ("Know you...?"), whereas now anything other than a modal or other auxiliary requires "do-support" ("Do you know...?"). There seems a great difference in syntactic competence between even near-native L2 speakers and L1 speakers: for English, consider tag questions (complete "You know that, don't you?"); difficult for L2 speakers, child's play for L1 speakers. It really seems that grammar is what L1 speakers "get"; and that once we put aside aphasics and the like and discount "slips of the tongue" that would be quickly acknowledged by the speaker, any time an alleged "grammatical mistake" is found in the speech of an L1 speaker, it's actually something else. -- Hoary 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I imagine the conditional situation is in flux, the upshot for the time being (until it settles into a comparatively stable form) is a fog of meaning that's difficult to penetrate. But the example also suggests that there isn't one grammar within a given language anyway, that there may be several "correct" grammatical forms for a particular meaning at any given time... But what the hell do I know, I'm no student of this level of linguistics, just an armchair enthusiast. Pinkville 14:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The model writing postcards, (1906) by Swedish painter Carl Larsson (1853–1919), famous for his idyllic watercolours

Splendid, a gratuitous display of nipples! Or one nipple, at least. Joe Bob Briggs would be proud of this. But forget about Joe Bob; I like it
 * To make out such a tiny detail you must have hit on the pic to enlarge it. Perhaps you have the advantage in that respect, since I'm gay and can derive only uniform pleasure from all parts of the watercolour—table, chairs, flowers, body. I had to look up Briggs to see what you meant.Tony 11:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Lucky man! Yup, I'm just a hetero vulgarian. But society is to blame for what I have become. (Tip of the hat to Repo Man.) -- Hoary 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your query about commas in the direction of: yes, I can't understand it myself, so will look into recasting that sentence, or removing it. Tony 01:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't it be "spelling", then? [asks Tony, about something]
 * Yes, that would be fine. I have a slight preference for "orthography" for one reason; but come to think of it even in my eyes this is outweighed by the concision of two syllables rather than four. Plus of course it's your page, not mine. Incidentally, see this. -- Hoary 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good comments at that link. Apart from the reduction in syllables, I don't want to send them scurrying to their dictionaries. Plain English? Tony 06:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams
I am not sure if you know the whole history there, but I recommend treading lightly. Work really hard to be NPOV and gentle in the talk page, because this has been a bit of a flamewar article in the past. :) Be firm about citing sources, and I would actually recommend proposing changes on the talk page first and then making them only after some consensus has been made.

Otherwise, I am likely to get calls on my personal cellphone about this. I prefer that not happen. :) NPOV is non-negotiable, but let's also be gentle and move slowly to preserve harmony when possible.--Jimbo Wales 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, to me "an advocate on [xyz] issues" implies somebody who has letters published in newspapers, has articles published in magazines, makes speeches in rallies, appears on television, or some alternative (I'm open minded) at about that level. Seeing no sign of that, I inserted a FACT tag some days ago. That was answered with two references, which said that she'd (yes, newsworthily) appeared at one or two rallies. To me, appearance is less than notable advocacy. I'd be inclined to scrap the reference entirely, and thought I was being very indulgent to reword instead of scrap. I'm surprised then to see a reversion of what I did with the edit summary Do a search on Adams and you will find that she has donated time and funds to several gay non-profit organizations. Further clarification can be provided if necessary. What is your problem? Since I'm asked: My problems are that donating time and funds to NPOs seems less than "advocacy", and that the further clarification was just what I had asked for and what could still be, but is not, provided. &para; I'm very sorry to hear about calls to your cellphone, though. Its number must be hugely more public than mine is, or than I'd ever want mine to be. I hope you're not disturbed any further. -- Hoary 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Kana
Sorry, but kana are not letters, they are syllables. The kana form a syllabery. Japanese does not have letters, which are sub-syllable components. Please volountarily revert your reversion. Do you read and speak Japanese? Akihabara 22:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As it happens I do, though I don't see why this should be an issue. You're choosing a restricted meaning of "letter"; I believe that it also has a wider meaning that encompasses members of a syllabary. (The only dictionary I happen to have at hand now has an entry for "letter" that's disappointingly vague about this.) &para; I've reexamined the edit; the problem was that syllables (which are sounds, not graphemes) were being transliterated, which I understand to mean converted from one writing system to another. &para; Is what's written true? I'd have guessed that "Tokio" resulted from an aversion to "kyo" as somehow strange and, well, unEnglish; but offhand I have no evidence for this. -- Hoary 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for removing the question from my Talk page. Not sure why he posted that. I don't recognize him. Oh, well. =) -- Gogo Dodo 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess
Dear Hoary—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 04:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

New Ryūkyū vs. Ryukyu poll
Hello. You participated in the Ryūkyū Islands vs. Ryukyu Islands vote that resulted in no consensus at Talk:Ryūkyū Islands. As you are probably aware, that vote is being redone at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28Japan-related_articles%29. . If you still have an opinion, please participate in the new poll before it is concluded. Bendono 00:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

spellbound?
By my typos? Maybe; I'm surprised there are so many. Should have pasted it into Word and spell-checked. Which were the pompous bits of the date-link proposal? Contend? Tony 08:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a compelling need to create an additional syntax for autoformatting but not linking dates. (Currently, the autoformatting and linking functions are conflated.) Please consider this matter urgently, and if possible make the mark-up for the new decoupled syntax as easy to key in as the current linking mark-up.


 * The new syntax is conceived not as a replacement but as an alternative, retaining the option to link to a chronological article where useful, and the huge number of date-links already marked up in the project.


 * There are significant advantages to allowing autoformatted dates to be black rather than blue, where there is consensus to do so in an article. Specifically, reducing the density of blued-out text will:
 * (1) improve the readability of the text;
 * (2) improve the aesthetic appearance of the text;
 * (3) remove low-value chronological links that may lead readers to a pages that are irrelevant to an article;
 * (4) increase the prominence of valuable links;
 * (5) reduce the spill-over effect, in which editors feel they should link centuries, decades, and bare years, months and days of the week; and
 * (6) reduce conflict.


 * NAMES

Howzat? -- Hoary 08:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As usual, much better than my first version. I've implemented this one, with minor changes. Thanks! Tony 06:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Carl Timothy Jones
You lost me. Are you seconding Kim's opinion that the block was excessive? If so, can you give me some reasons why you believe this user isn't a troll, and perhaps what you'd do for an alternate remedy? You can see some of my thoughts at User_talk:Kim_Bruning. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm seconding the opinion that the block was premature. I don't believe he isn't a troll; while I don't like some of what I see, I'm not yet convinced that he is a troll. Of course he's not a new user; he's a new incarnation of an older one. Until we know that the older one is banned, being a sock is no reason to ban him. Alternative remedy? Just wait a couple of days or until he edits some more; see what he does, and act on this. Incidentally, his existence came to my notice when I saw that something had happened to Alan Lodge. If nominating this for AfD is trollery, you're going to have to deal pretty stringently with the perp of this edit (but you may wish to consider that he's an editor in excellent standing and that I'd rush to his defense too). -- Hoary 03:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, let's try to keep this discussion at a higher level. I didn't say that the AfD of Alan Lodge was the reason I blocked him, so your "counterexample" is just a strawman, and your use of it isn't very respectful to me. I'm not that cavalier with the broom.
 * I went for an indef-block because he's an established user, masquerading as a newbie, who is clearly here to either harass another user or violate WP:POINT or perhaps both at once. It is possible (likely?) that he's a sock of a blocked user. Now, it is undeniable that he's targeting User_talk:WietsE; see User_talk:WietsE for both evidence that there was something personal behind his edits and more evidence that he had familiarity with wikipolicies beyond what any two-day-old Wikipedian would have. He's also arguing quite strenuously in those AfDs, responding to every "keep" comment that I found. Whether this is a WP:POINT violation is debatable; I'm more concerned with him harassing another user through the deletion process. Even if every deletion suggestion is valid, it's still a bad use of a critical Wikipedia procedure, and is something to be discouraged. If it's a sock of a user in good standing, it also likely falls under the forbidden uses of sock puppets (good hand/bad hand). The user in question also seems to have no interest in making productive edits; he made 20-odd edits, all of which were csd, prod, or afd tags.
 * It's not any one of those things, although I'm troubled by the appearance of harassment. It's *all* of those things together which point to someone who's bent on making trouble here. Now, if someone can give me reasonable doubt on these points, I'm open to an unblock with a short leash. But I just don't see that evidence, and I'm concerned about giving this user a chance to make more mischief. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in a rush today and I hope that goes some way to explaining any apparent brusqueness in what I write. No, I didn't think you banned him for nominating that one article. He may have done much worse; but even if he didn't his apparent monomania was cause for concern. I'd have asked him questions more forcefully than Kim did. If the editing pattern persisted and good answers weren't forthcoming, I'd have given him a stiff warning. And if that didn't do the trick I'd ban him. I wouldn't drag this process out, but I'd be willing to let it take a couple of days, during which I'd leave a message asking WietsE for patience. Of Jones's "contributions" that I've looked at, those within the Lodge AfD seem the most sustained. His comments within it are lucid and (though perhaps very wrong) apparently reasonable; I think the AfD should have been allowed to proceed, though I wouldn't kick up a fuss about this and I realize that it wasn't you who closed it. -- Hoary 09:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out ...
Dmacw6 Good copy-editor, it seems. Tony 11:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, (s)he seems to be doing lots of good work. Some of the articles are on subjects that don't obviously deserve such an abundant application of a scarce resource (editing power), but each to his own. -- Hoary 14:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

On Colvin
Hoary I just dont understand you or your ilk. My problem is I just try to add info as I have limited time and I want to contribute what I can. You just seem to delete info but not just that you add your sarcasm too. That sarcasm Hoary is NOT needed. You really need to learn to nuance. Like a bull in the china shop. Shame.

Example you say on Colvin's page it only shows one pic at Dobbins site but if you had taken another second you may have figured out that art sites are different than other sites and you may have even thought about clicking it  and if you would have clicked it you would realize that there is a whole other section that lets you see much more of Colvin's work.

All of these so-called editors and this whole art section with people editing it who know very little about how artists feel or how its handled should not and I repeat should NOT be BULLS in China Shops and shouldn't even try. Artsojourner 04:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's put aside shops and bulls for a moment and look at the example. I didn't say that the Dobbins site only shows one picture; I said that the link shows one picture, assuming that the link meant the page and not the whole site. How was that? Well, I clicked the link and saw a single image in the Javascript popup. At the time I was using a different browser than I'm using now, and I speculate that either something hid the scrollbar or that I was too sleepy to notice the scrollbar. That's why I misdescribed the link. I've corrected this now. I'm sorry if I have made any other mistakes; if I have done so, please let me know. (Meanwhile, I don't see any sarcasm.) -- Hoary 07:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On Isaacs
Thank you THANK you!!!!!!!! Artsojourner 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, heh heh, that was quite a change of mood. I'm glad to have been of some help.


 * Notes ("references") are simple once you've figured them out. Within the body of the text:
 * This is an assertion. 
 * Somewhere near the foot of the article, a single instance (probably under the subheading "Notes") of:
 * One warning note: If during revision you do something like forgetting to provide a needed  , you can screw up the resulting article very seriously indeed. (I speak from embarrassing first-hand experience.) So if you're doing a lot of work on notes, it's better to hit the "Show preview" button after you think each note is done. -- Hoary 06:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One warning note: If during revision you do something like forgetting to provide a needed  , you can screw up the resulting article very seriously indeed. (I speak from embarrassing first-hand experience.) So if you're doing a lot of work on notes, it's better to hit the "Show preview" button after you think each note is done. -- Hoary 06:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I really feel that after looking over many many artists articles that I can safely say this works now. What do you think since I reworked a large part of it? Artintegrated 04:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Lee Isaacs article is certainly a lot better written now, but Isaacs' claim for notability still isn't clear. He's been a commercial photographer with many notable clients -- but there's no independent verification of this. I suppose verifiably, he has tried various interesting things and he has been a participant in various interesting and worthy activities. But which of these criteria does he meet? -- Hoary 07:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Isaacs is my vote. This photographer is quite notable. Editor Hoary decided long ago he didn't want Isaacs' on WP for whatever reason. We both obviously see, along with others, that Isaacs work is as notable as half of the photographers on WP whether its art photography and/or commercial photography. I fleshed out alot of this article but I do understand to google Lee Isaacs is not easy  since alot of people have his first and last name as a middle name and last name. I have a book here, UPsouth, that has many examples of his work.  This is a Warhol project grant through Space One Eleven. He is in good company as far as the notoriety of the other artists here is concerned. Emma Amos and bell hooks are in the book along with Willie Cole and Marie Weaver. Cole is the only other male in this project. Maybe someone could sift through some of this. Artsojourner 05:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pinky Bass
Whats going on here? Please help

On a recent article I want to include on Pinky Bass, the Pinhole photographer this is what happened. I dod put the hang on at the top and was deleted almost immediately. This guys seems to do this alot after reading others logs about him. what gives? Please let me know what to do now. the article log is here    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NawlinWiki#Pinky_Bass    Artsojourner 18:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In the form (17:39 17 December) in which it was deleted (17:40 17 December), the article read in full:
 *   creating a page for Pinky Bass   takes some time  Lots of info  please be patient. 

The article thus said nothing whatever about Pinky Bass. Nawlinwiki was entirely right to delete it without any warning; I'd have done exactly the same.

You seem to have misunderstood the use of the "Hangon" template. You add this to an article after somebody has added a speedy deletion notice, not in an attempt to dissuade anyone from adding a speedy deletion notice.

If you really have lots of information with which to create an article about somebody, and if creating the article will take some time, then the course of action is obvious: spend that time writing a draft either in a file editor on your computer or in a subpage of your own user page. When the draft has reached a state in which it is informative and would not be deleted, use it to start an article -- but not before. -- Hoary 22:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. So my best bet is to do this in another program like Appleworks then drag it over That way I dont have to freak out about the time it is taking me to show info about the article. I get it! Thanks man, Artsojourner 07:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked up the book and you are correct in that is is only one page Also, thank you so much for your help in wording these things  I have lots of info but I'm not very good at inputting it sometimes. Thanks very much indeed It reads so much clearer now. Artsojourner 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Eisenstaedt
Actually he photographed cities and such but what would you call this??? So much of his earlier work was just photography in the feel of Paul Strand or even Elliott Erwitt. He is noted for his most famous piece but it seems atypical of the overall body of his work so I am not clear as to which should be listed. I could add more areas I will look up more info.

When I had questions about these areas I didn't add anything. I figured it was better to be settled about it than to get it incorrect. Thanks Hoary Artsojourner 01:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bernhard
Hoary I am afraid that it is so. Ruth is gone. I called Mary Ann this mornng and didn't get an answer but my fears were realized once I got an article from the San Francisco Chronicle.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/19/BAG8JN28GN1.DTL&hw=ruth+bernhard&sn=001&sc=1000

Sad sad day. Artsojourner 15:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the informative link. I guessed that it was indeed true that she had died, but there was always the possibility of a hoax and I therefore felt compelled to revert any claim that she had died until evidence for this was offered.


 * I've only examined one book of Bernhard's, the rather surprising one The Big Heart. Viewed coldly, it's really not so very special -- but I like it a lot and rather often look through the copy I bought about five years ago. -- Hoary 15:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"The Eternal Body" is my favorite. I talked with Mary Ann Helmholtz and she said Ruth died in her sleep I worry about May Ann though   She had a heart attack last April and all this trauma cant be good for her. I agree with you about the revert until all the stones are unturned it should not be listed Artsojourner 19:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Presley no, Estonia yes
Tere tulemast.

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I have thought about your advice and I don't currently plan to intervene or "speak up" about the article on Nick Adams, or the Presley article. It is my understanding that the user I was speaking of is unable to currently edit celebrity biographies. Also, after looking at some of his/her contributuions, it seems as though I will getting a very large head ache if I try.

I am glad to see you have interest in Estonian photographers and filmmakers such as Johannes Pääsuke - he is very important artist for Estonian people. Unfortunately, I am not very good with the subject of photography. However, since you seem to be very interested and good with the subject, a few other Estonian photographers you may wish to look into are: Peeter Tooming, Jaan Riet and his daughter Hilja Riet, Kalju Suur, Peeter-Maria Laurits, Herkki-Erich Merila, Marko Laimre, and of course Carl Sarap. While I maybe able to help with some biographical information, I do not know much about the techiniques of fotography. Proosit ExRat 01:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's agree to forget about Presley. At least in the short term, the Presley article will probably have to rot. I hope that other people will eventually arrive at the article, cut the trivia (sleazy and other) and contribute good material. If they don't, well, there are other information sources about Presley.


 * I know very little about photography in Estonia and among the names you mention for the first time the only one I know is Tooming. I find that his work ranges from the worthwhile and enjoyable to the gimmicky and dated, but perhaps I haven't seen the best selection. Sarap documented Narva, whose history and destruction should be much better known.


 * I came across Pääsuke by accident: the fascinating book of his photos was on offer in the little souvenir shop at the entrance to the Estonian National Museum (Tartu). We went to Tartu (from Tallinn) by the unfairly maligned railway; I was very impressed by the half-ruined Tartu station, which I hope can be restored. (If there's a restoration appeal, I'd like to know about it: I'd make a contribution.) -- Hoary 09:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Adolfo Farsari
Another one awaiting your discerning eye.... Pinkville 23:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent work! -- Hoary 23:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why, thank you! Any improvements you can make would be most greatfully received! Pinkville 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If I may adopt a charming phrase I read yesterday in a "position vacant" ad posted by a university, my efforts will commiserate with the quality of the article. However, they'll have to wait a couple of days. (I blame an accumulation of [distinctly festivity-unrelated] disasters in the "real world".) -- Hoary 02:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm only just surfacing after/from under an accumulation of [distinctly festivity-unrelated] disasters in the "real world". Currently much enjoying the music of Mahmoud Ahmed, Baaba Maal, and Fela Kuti... lubricated with one or two bottles of organic red... The disasters seem to have faded for the time being. I look forward to the results of your exertions, re: Farsari. All the best. Pinkville 02:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Splendid, splendid, you're surfacing. Right, now forget any silly notion you may have of doing Christmas shopping (it's painful, plus you never really know what she wants) and instead be a good chap and give a little nudge to one of these. (My efforts toward Farsari will commiserate!) &para; Yikes, have you seen which notable artiste has been selected for special display here? -- Hoary 03:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's just swell! Then again, 5930 Wikipedia contributions is presumably notable... ¶ Meanwhile, these short-term priorities are currently beyond me! I'm proficient at creating lists of things to do and then doing something else entirely. ¶ I have no more money for Xmas shopping anyway! Pinkville 04:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oi, young whippersnapper, that's my pilcrow you're using! -- Old whippersnapper

*cocks a snook* Youthful (he dreams) upstart

Your Farsari edits...
are splendid! Thank you for macrons, tidying, concising and otherwise improving the beast! Incidentally, I started the article in a version of Word that doesn't support macrons or Japanese text, so I'm always having to add manually one by one while editing in WP... Very tedious and prone to oversight (and not in the peculiarly US governmental misleading sense). Pinkville 18:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hang on, are you saying that you (clearly an intelligent, discerning adult) are a voluntary user of Microsoft Turd? -- Hoary 00:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

By no means. Said turd was the standard at work... At home, I'm a Mac sort - but sadly, I have yet to find a decent word processing programme (Appleworks is... like working in soft clay with a blunt stylus) that produces documents that can also be opened by Microsoft Turd and other users (voluntary or not). Pinkville 02:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * NeoOffice is such a sedulous imitator of Turd that people who like the latter ought to like it, while I loathe it. But at least it's "open" and free of charge. It reads .DOC files and, if you want it to, writes to them as well. -- Hoary 04:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Scouting FAC
Hi. I know you as a helpful and skilled prose editor and was wondering if you would look at this FAC. It is now 2nd from bottom of the list and while it has had much improvement done to it during the FAC, it may still benefit from some prose editing, which seems to be the biggest concern before. Thank you for any help and Merry Christmas! Sumoeagle179 18:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahem! I think I should reveal at this point that shortly after joining the boy scouts my very much younger self was . . . not thrown out, exactly, but strongly advised to leave: an offer that I gratefully accepted. You may wish to reconsider your amicable invitation. . . . Hoary 23:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, okay, I take it you mean you may not be able to be impartial; in such a case, thank you for your honesty candor. Have a nice holiday season. Sumoeagle179 01:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable interpretation, yes; though it's not quite what I intended. I really don't think I'm the best person for the job. Still, I've given the article a look and have made some changes. (Note some comments and questions in .) Best of luck with the article. -- Hoary 05:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, that's just the help I was looking for. I answered your questions. Thanks.Sumoeagle179 12:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: George H. W. Bush
I had reverted that edit three times (WP:3RR) and the user kept adding it back. I had previously stated it was conjecture on the two prior edits. I was trying to be diplomatic with an obviously new user. Having reached my three revert limit, I assumed (correctly) that someone else would see the information was worthless and edit it out. Please use a little more tact when criticizing the edit comments (and assumed motives) of others. ++ Arx Fortis 15:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your recent post
Your recent post regarding perceived personal attacks and faux fear of blocking was totally inappropiate. It served in no way to cool the heat in the situation, and there can be little question that "I never talk behind people's backs - a concept I don't expect you to understand." is clearly a personall attack. I'd ask that you consider more carefully before posting similar in the future. - brenneman  23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your block of User:88.191.25.38
You just blocked him for 15 minutes. From a quick check of contribs, there are major personal attacks against established editors. See for example. I would say that a longer block is warranted (like 48 hours at least). We can't tolerate personal attacks. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree and am right now writing the message that will accompany this longer block. -- Hoary 00:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Southern artists
''In this edit, User:Artsojourner plonked the following on User talk:TheMindsEye. I think it was supposed to go here. -- Hoary 06:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)''

Geez! Hoary some of your edits and explanations seem so callous. Southern artists are different enough to have their own category I assure you just as southern writers should have their own category. Southwestern artists are in the same boat as they, too, are quite different from the rest of the country. What does this hurt if they have their own categories?

In just a day of recent edits, I find that you, instead of getting to the root of a problem or situation, had rather just delete it all rather than deal with it. I feel that this is a breach of respect for the other editors on here. You tend to overreach and have said in some of your edits that you dont have the time to bother. What does this mean? This seems pointless and ill conceived for you to waste all of this time if you dont wanna bother. In fact, you seem to have this idea that you know more about editing than anyone else on here. Anyone can just delete something. Deleting something is not the same as editing since deleting doesn't need any thought. Other editors spend their time building an article and adding pertinent information to include in these articles. You dont seem to respect your work on here as many of your comments seem pointless and harsh with no feeling other than disdain for what you are doing or bothering to do. It just leaves otehr editors frustrated and aggravated.

I dont claim to be any kind of editor at all since all I do is try to include information. If you dont like what you are doing then just dont do it because wasting other people's time and energy is bad Karma and how can anything good come from bad Karma, definitely a deal breaker for me. Artsojourner 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're surely referring to my "depopulation" of Category:Southern artists: I mean, for every artist who was marked with this category, I removed the category.


 * The reason was simple. For every state of the US, I think, there exists "Category: [state] artists"; and certainly for every one of the artists whose articles I fiddled with, there was one or more of Category:Louisiana artists or whatever. For convenience's sake, let's stick with female artists from Louisiana. If somebody is so notably a Louisiana artist as to deserve to be so categorized, she's also automatically a Southern artist.


 * (I suppose I could imagine an artist who never stepped out of the Pacific northwest -- or indeed the Netherlands or Karelia or wherever -- but who yet was claimed to have a "Southern sensibility". But I saw no such claim made for anybody there.)


 * Thus Category:Southern artists seems utterly superfluous.


 * I don't think there's much point in discussing any other contributor/editor's attribution of motives and predilections to me, so I shan't respond. (If you're that dissatisfied or otherwise concerned, there are channels by which you can complain about me to Wikipedia in general.) However, I'm happy to clarify anything that's not clear in what's written above, and I'm open to an argument for how I'm wrong and Category:Southern artists is not rendered superfluous by Category:Louisiana artists and the rest. -- Hoary 07:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:WOW, lol!
Dare I say it, but I'm surprisingly, well, surprised, at the redirect you just made. You made me "LOL", good job. User:Logical2uTalk 01:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it wasn't my own idea, as WP:WOW was already redirecting there (until our visiting ten-year-old temporarily changed it). Thanks for the fast zapping of the nitwit's user page and the fast banning. -- Hoary 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I was talking about the LTA:WOW subpage redirect, (I've done some work on the WP:WOW page before last night), which now redirects to the same page WP:WOW does(And is protected)... I didn't actually ban him, however... I'm not (maybe 'yet' goes here) an administrator. User:Logical2uTalk 23:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Lee Isaacs
You mentioned on the talk page for Lee Isaacs that you were considering sending the article to AfD. I thought you would want to know that another editor has already done so. Please see Articles for deletion/Lee Isaacs. Eastmain 21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Isaacs is my vote. Artsojourner 05:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This guy who photographed in Japan long ago
I've added a very wee bit more, do you think this one's ready for FAC treatment? Pinkville 23:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It soon will be. I'll print it out, go over it with a fine-toothed ferret, and let you know the worst. -- Hoary 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I love the fine-thoothed ferret! I'm at the point where I've looked at the article so much I can no longer see wht's there (or not there). Thanks. Pinkville 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Principality of Freedonia
Indeed, it is nonsense like that - and the behavior of its proponents - that make me wonder why I spend so much time here. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The AfD process is semi-broken; it works for clearcut cases, but most cases where there's a real debate end up as "no consensus" because that's the path of least resistance. Any AfD in particular that I should look at? Especially if there's one that needs closing. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

on Scruggs
I see you have deleted many quotes by critics and curators in the past and now here because, as you state, you dont understand them. If they hold up to a galleries guidelines and criteria then they can and should be used as quotes here on WP. these quotes are usually cited so they can be referenced. Because you dont understand the quotes doesn't mean many others will feel the same way Hoary. This seems to be a limitation you have and in my opinion this is yet another reason that you should leave the art section alone. You go at it like a bull in a china shoppe. Your comments toward many artiists are gross and unrefined and I would expect more from someone editing articles about art. Your comments here are noted by alot of art peole I think you should care more and at least nuance your comments or keep them to yourself. Artsojourner 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's precisely what I deleted:


 * About Scruggs' work, Jon Coffelt has said, "Virginia Scruggs' shapes become a reflection and an inflection of our own reality. Ever-changing, these bubble-works expand what we understand on the surface by reflecting information back to us in a convex form. Upside-down and backwards, we rethink the lines of the known boundaries of expression." -Jon Coffelt


 * Does it add to our understanding of Scruggs? I'll let other visitors to this page judge for themselves.


 * You say: Your comments toward many artiists are gross and unrefined: Examples? -- Hoary 16:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And you said:
 * 15:55, 29 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Dorian Gray (→References In music - Yes, it was crap. Trivia, coat-tails riding, promotion, etc.)
 * 15:58, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Jimbo Wales (Rvt removal. The material does seem rather senseless (it's certainly incoherent and parts of it look batty), but "rant" may be a bit strong.)
 * 15:09, 23 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Adolfo Farsari (→Farsari and Yokohama shashin - removing SGML comments, now that it's all hunky-dory)
 * 09:46, 23 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Kevin Ayers (→External links - skipping wasteful, modem-unfriendly opening page)
 * 04:08, 23 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Hoary (→Your Farsari edits... - MS Turd: Just say no.)
 * 06:14, 17 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (→Sentences - That may have been pretentious terminology at its worst!)
 * 06:05, 17 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (→Sentences - Photo caption: not grammar but orthography at its worst (see the earlier talk page discussion))
 * 03:48, 14 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (→em dashes - More bile!)
 * 06:15, 12 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Graham Greene (rvt to state before latest goofy addition)
 * 06:16, 12 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:75.20.212.217 (a warning about silly additions)
 * 02:11, 14 November 2004 (hist) (diff) m Milton Glaser (I've made this slightly less terrible. But it's still terrible.)
 * 21:57, 16 November 2004 (hist) (diff) CMP Media (Either vanity or copyvio; why should we waste our time finding which it is of the two?)
 * 01:44, 17 November 2004 (hist) (diff) CMP Media (Removed the self-congratulation from what had merely been advertising puff for the company.)
 * 01:56, 17 November 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:CMP Media (My dislike of the page I've just re-created. (Well, I loathed its predecessor, so perhaps it's an improvement.))
 * 21:14, 26 November 2004 (hist) (diff) Dandelion Records (a perfunctory start)
 * 04:48, 4 December 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dr. Alien! (Delete this trollery)
 * 10:35, 7 December 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sollog (Correction: Ennis is mentioned by NYT and WP, but only as a flake)
 * 05:23, 9 December 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gogo (Final Fantasy VI) (Gogo (Final Fantasy VI) redundant fancruft)
 * 05:39, 12 December 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sollog (→Status as deity - godliness revisited)
 * 06:30, 10 January 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 10 (Scatolinguistics superfluous core, unencyclopedic baggage)
 * 06:48, 18 December 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Glenn Kessler (Glenn Kessler -- delete as fancruft (if even that))
 * 07:04, 18 December 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sollog (→TOH logo - Removed by probable sockpuppet "Xwatcher")
 * 03:09, 3 January 2005 (hist) (diff) A Child's Garden of Verses (very feeble rescue from a cretinous start)
 * 06:52, 4 January 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Hoary (Reverting again. Bye bye, nitwit)
 * 07:02, 4 January 2005 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Hoary (more cretinousness deleted)
 * 00:47, 5 January 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:172.131.211.87 (Yet another IP number used by the same bored troll.)
 * 04:45, 5 January 2005 (hist) (diff) m User:Jpgordon (rv after moronic change by 172.208.143.168)
 * 07:11, 6 January 2005 (hist) (diff) m Sollog (rv. Anonymous AOL nitwit and Ennis -- a match made in heaven?
 * 06:42, 14 February 2005 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin mercer (→Benjamin mercer - removing my own gratuitous rudeness)
 * Non-entity's vanity page. Thank you for wasting our time. -- Hoary 05:03, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
 * 07:55, 13 February 2005 (hist) (diff) The Man Who Had All the Luck (made it a bit clearer; removed gushing praise for Fields)
 * 07:55, 12 February 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 12 (Robert Fairweather -- the vanity page that refuses to die)

and there are hundreds more. Artsojourner 17:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On that note... Hoary, I thought you should know that Artsojourner posted a message (partially concerning you directly) on my talk page, and that I've responded there. Pinkville 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a very long and careful response; I'm sorry that it must have taken a lot of your time away from much worthier activities, e.g. Adolfo Farsari or for that matter "real life". And you paint me as altogether much too amiable. (Consider me as a dalek; the inner me is the dalek creature.) But many thanks all the same. -- Hoary 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was only afraid that by putting my oar in I might catch a crab. I've been pondering this situation for a week or two anyway. Pinkville 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you're a dalek (hardly so hideous), you at least operate by a code we (wikifolk) hold in common. Pinkville 01:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What an extraordinary list. Er, where among it are comments toward many artiists [that] are gross and unrefined, or what other point are you making? -- Hoary 23:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) .... PS Ah, I think you're saying that comments I make within edit summaries might in other contexts (and possibly even within the original contexts) offend some people. Yes, right. But I'm hard pressed to find comments about (or toward) artists among them. I do reserve the right to make very testy comments about the WP activities by or on behalf of people who deserve such comments; such people may regard themselves as artists (an example is the Robert Fairweather whom you bring up at the end), and they may even be artists, though I can't think of any examples now. I don't regard the activities on behalf of Isaacs as comparable with those on behalf of Fairweather, and I can't remember ever saying (or thinking) anything disrespectful of Isaacs. -- Hoary 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the narrow issue of my removal of the quote, it's better discussed on the article's talk page, where indeed TheMindsEye has already commented on it. -- Hoary 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)