User:Hoary/Archive12

Please do not edit this page.

Laurence Aberhart
Replied to all of your oppositions on the article's talk page. I won't be able to fix all of the problems you've raised, as I have other stuff to do in RL right now, but hopefully I'll be able to answer any other problems... Cheers, Spawn Man 02:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ta!

 * :) Gwen Gale 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Traub
I've listed it for afd. Corvus cornix 04:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

GFDL issue
Sorry, I got crazy busy -- has this been worked out to everyone's satisfaction? Jkelly 18:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I've heard no more about it. The page is still deleted, and there's nothing new on the editor's talk page about it. -- Hoary 05:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Kosigrim (exhibition catalogue)
What I don't understand is how his many edits don't show on his contributions. Johnbod 01:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm more puzzled by what he had in mind.


 * As you may have guessed, I'm particularly interested in Japanese catalogues. Most still don't have ISBNs, a claim for which I cannot present any source but that won't be disputed by anyone who has spent any time in Japan and has any interest in these matters: it's very obvious to the user of any good library. (A strict enforcement of policies might force its removal, and perhaps this is a matter of concern; but I leave it and invite knowledgable people either to dispute or to confirm it.) What I want to add is the well known reason for this: The organizers find it very much easier/cheaper to get permission to reproduce works of art, etc., in books only sold directly by the exhibitors. This is a well known fact, but it's not one that's obvious to people here and it's one that I can't back up with a reference, so I'm careful not to mention it. (I haven't looked for a reference; I can't be bothered.) -- Hoary 02:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See his talk-page (reply to me); he is a bit like Nasz (was it? - just indefinitely banned) again. He has tagged maybe 10 articles I've worked on, & mentions some that haven't come up on my watch list. Some had inline citations, some specified one very reputable source, etc.  I'd like to know if my articles are being specially picked on, but his edits don't appear on his contribution history - how can this be?.  Several he tagged for wikifikation & refs have been on DYK effectively as they are now.  Johnbod 18:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim Deacon
Hi, Hoary. Just wondering whether you realized that an AfD discussion exists regarding this article that still needs to be closed. Thanks. --Evb-wiki 13:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I realized it all too well. I found that the "article" was primarily a copyvio together with a bit of junk that was somewhere between mere whimsy and potential fodder for a libel case. So I zapped the article. But then, before I could close the AfD or send a stern message to the perp, WP's servers crapped out on me. I spent a frustrating ten minutes trying again and again to do stuff, but then had to meet the demands of the real world and leave my computer. -- Hoary 14:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ok. just checking. good thing the real world came to your rescue, huh? :-) --Evb-wiki 14:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Benchley!
Howdy! How do you feel about the article currently? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good at a quick glance. However, the red links are a bit unsightly. I'd unlink any non-article that you can't see yourself creating in the near future. (Of course you'd still be able to create the article later.) Sorry to be terse but it's late here. -- Hoary 15:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob, we've both been busy. I meant to do some redlink fill-ins last night, but I got distracted by baseball.  I'll fill in some of the major ones and then proceed.  Thanks again for the help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Geesha girls
Hey Hoary! I found your comments on the Geesha girls article to be somewhat uninformed and inappropriate, especially your comment about Prasso's book being "luridly titled". The very simplest of internet searches would have found Shreridan Prasso's homepage, where you would have discovered things like:

http://sheridanprasso.com/bio.htm

"She holds an M.Phil. in Social Anthropology from Cambridge University, and a B.A. in International Affairs from George Washington University. She is active in the Council on Foreign Relations, the Asia Society, the Japan Society, the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, and the Overseas Press Club. She is the recipient of a Human Rights Press Award for coverage of Cambodian land mine victims, and shared in six awards for team coverage of the Asian financial crisis and its aftermath."

And about the book itself:

http://www.sheridanprasso.com/mystique/

" “…a highly provocative book that challenges the cultural and political stereotypes of Asia that have dominated Western thinking.” —Elizabeth C. Economy, Director, Asia Studies, Council on Foreign Relations "

I appreciate your efforts to maintain the integrity of the references used on articles, but often it helps to research things a bit before leaving comments or questioning the validity of resources. If you have questions as to what specifically was resourced where, I think that is completely acceptable, but I think it is quite hasty to dismiss a resource out of hand simply because you don't like the title of the book.MightyAtom 11:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is quite hasty to dismiss a resource out of hand simply because you don't like the title of the book. Me too. Actually I rather like the (lurid) title of the book, which I neither claim to have seen nor dismiss. The matter of the book title aside, what else did I write that was inappropriate? -- Hoary 14:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Who are you?
Are you some sort of moderator of Wikipedia?

If you are, why are you allowing people just to post lies and state them as a fact?

I get a vandalism warning for trying to fix a lie while others can just post lies and that's accepted on here?

No wonder why people always say not to trust this site.

... added at 06:58, 7 June 2007 Yoyocoolboy


 * Who I am need be of no more interest to you than who you are is to me.


 * Of course this site is riddled with errors. That doesn't mean that either your individual wisdom, or mine, is superior to others' collective wisdom (or stupidity). Certainly I have no reason to trust you over others until you persuade me, and I don't expect you to trust me over others, at least until I persuade you. So neither you nor I can make radical alterations by fiat.


 * I believe that you're referring to this series of edits of yours. But you talk above of "a lie". What is this "lie"? Please explain at Talk:List of highest-grossing films.


 * You're also welcome to argue there for the deletion of a large element of that article. If there's clear agreement to do so after a week or so, go ahead and delete it. If there's a dispute and you're really sure that you're right and your opponents are wrong, there are other ways here to state your case.


 * Remember to sign your comments. You can do this by hitting "~" four times in a row. -- Hoary 07:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Read it and Weep
I wrote a complete and thorough reason as to how that list is complete BS and you can read it and understand what I'm talking about.

I don't see why I have to jump through hoops to try and delete lies; while if wikipedia would have tried to check their sources before allowing any old body to post on that list, then I wouldn't be having the problem in the first place, would I?Yoyocoolboy 07:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoa, cool it. I've suspected for some time that the section is junk. I just hadn't got around to investigating it.


 * You think a large part of the article is crap. I suspect the same thing. Your point seems to be that as long as crap is up there, people are being misinformed, so it's your duty to remove the crap pronto. But if you do that, you'll just be slapped down as a vandal, no matter how good your intentions are. (And if you throw around terms like "bullshit", it's even more certain. Not that your use of it so far as offended me in the slightest.)


 * So: (i) State your case as persuasively as you can on the article's talk page, and (ii) stick a scary notice on that part of the article, one that in effect warns people off believing any of it.


 * You had a bash at (i). You didn't do a bad job, but I think if you'd put an hour or so more into it you could have improved it. It's still not too late, but don't rewrite what you've already written; instead, add to it. (You can, however, explicitly delete parts and rewrite them. But even this is better avoided.) As for (ii), the points you raised seem substantive enough for me to have done it myself.


 * Now please edit some movie-earnings-unrelated pages, to show what a constructive guy you are and how you're definitely not an "SPA", a term you can otherwise expect to have flung at you, however unfairly. -- Hoary 10:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Truth
Well, the truth offends, they say. And you getting offended just proves it, mate. ... posted at 15:58, 7 June 2007 by User:だってばよ ("Dattebayo" to those lacking hiragana), the major part of whose meagre list of contributions have concerned his/her own username.


 * Ya, well, like, the truth hearts, eh? Pinkville 23:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know
I realize all of this, that particular oppose, I found rather annoying, the comments following even more so. I have tried to show restraint and have only responded to a few comments. It's okay if the RfA is unsuccessful, I just wish people would lay off a bit, seems like overkill now, pointing out how uncivil and unbecoming a good little Wikipedian I am. Blah. I really let the thing go for a bit without saying much of anything, but a few comments I had to respond to, I tried to remain civil and while my comment to Cool Blue was sarcastic I really didn't think it was uncivil, seemed like he was just prodding me, either way, it's not a big deal and I don't plan to comment further. And I do enjoy the writing more than the cleaning but even Kerouac had downtime.IvoShandor 15:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I only felt hated for a day, that was a couple days ago. : ) I have to say, looking at the diff now, I am like, Oh my god, whoops. But it was a great idea at the time. And I am sorry your jealous, try: one bad day + one too many + spammer from hell and you'll get just the right mix, maybe, and then you too can have an ominous cloud not unlike "did he inhale" hanging over your head as well. Please accept previous comments with all intended lightheartedness. : ) IvoShandor 16:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, and I am not disturbed. Little eccentric maybe, but not disturbed, just in case you were still wondering. IvoShandor 18:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurata as a given name
Looks like you have a good point, and maybe even a good memory, for all we know. After an intensive investigation (lasting about 10 seconds), I have decided that Kurata Hyakuzō should be moved to Hyakuzō Kurata. Do you wish to have the fun, or should I do it? Chris the speller 03:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Although surname articles certainly have the potential to help people find an article, they do not fit the strict Wikipedia definition of disambiguation, "paths leading to different topic pages that could have essentially the same term as their title" (not "the same term IN their title"). Because entries on a surname article do not have the same full name, the natural names of their articles are different, so no disambiguation is needed. Surname pages are articles about the name, while disambiguation pages are non-articles used for navigation. Surname articles should not use the hndis template, because that puts them in the category "Lists of ambiguous human names", which is a subcategory of "Disambiguation", which makes them subject to the format and content guidelines under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Editors often want to delve into onomastics on these pages, and that addition of encyclopedic information makes them even more like true articles, not navigation paths. There are several discussions on the talk page of MoS:DP, especially section "Last name disambig". And whatever is said about given-name articles is generally understood to apply to surname articles as well. Chris the speller 05:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also on MoS:DP is a section "Should we create a style guide for Title (surname)?" which stands as a memorial to a brilliant idea I had, but for the actual construction of which I have not yet found the time and energy. However, my procrastination may now be paying off big time, now that an editor has come along who has a profound understanding of surnames and the desire to get this stuff right. Your skills appear to be a better match for this challenge, so I hereby invite you to assume the leadership; I will happily cheer you on. Chris the speller 18:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Another note, in case you hadn't noticed: LoPbN (List of People by Name) was completely blown away (along with several thousands of my edits) since that discussion took place, so you may disregard that aspect. Chris the speller 18:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ivailo Djourov
Yeah, I saw that (watchlisted it as it had been deleted 5 times in two days). Seems like the big problems have been fixed. Natalie 09:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not continue to characterize me
Please do not address your arguments to whatever you imagine my characteristics to be:
 * " Ivo said something that offended a particularly sensitive soul."

Please confine your comments to discussing the issue at hand, not other users. To diminish my arguments by calling me a "a particularly sensitive soul" as if this is some fault of mine, does not serve the intended purpose of advancing your arguments. It simply makes me wonder why User:Chrislk02‎'s actions cannot be defended without insulting me. And it fully appears they can't be, the more I am told I am at fault for being offended. KP Botany 16:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

TESPS
Hmm, this edit seems particularly superfluous. Pinkville 01:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Tuskjet
Thank you for the assistance with Tuskjet! I do appreciate it. Can you delete the image that they admitted to stealing? Image:MM05.jpg is the image they were referring to. Thanks again, Dismas |(talk) 18:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Though a little note on your warning to the user: They are allowed to remove warnings (WP:USER), though it isn't encouraged. x42bn6 Talk Mess  21:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Carol Kaye
So I took this one off my watchlist rather than let it nettle me. Gwen Gale 06:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wise move. I pretty much ignore the entire Hollywood entertainment biz. Of course it deserves good articles, but my life's too short to let me put much effort into ensuring that it gets them. I'd rather put my limited time and energies into writing about stuff that's of no interest to the editors of People or Entertainment Weekly. (Latest: Tadahiko Hayashi -- to give him the back-to-front name mandated by some silly WP guideline -- a new and still a raw article.) -- Hoary 07:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(gasp)
Sir, I must say Sir!One of your contributions are very offensive, to me, please reply below!Thank you.--71.96.237.176 02:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Which one? -- Hoary 02:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

YOur edit to Drew Barrymore. ''... added at 01:47, 22 June 2007 by 71.96.229.12

Did you listen to him?DREW BARRYMORE! ... added at 06:48, 21 July 2007 by 71.96.240.211


 * No. But if you take the trouble to make your messages coherent, and to sign them, I might take the trouble to reply to them. -- Hoary 07:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare list
I am curious about this statement: "Editor at Large would have been wise to build it up in his or her userspace, and only when it had reached a stage where it was clearly worthwhile spring it on WP's dazzled and grateful readers." - I thought that such practices were frowned upon because they encourage "ownership" rather than wikipedia's unique group editing. Your statement at the list seems to contradict the philosophy you espouse on your userpage: "Sometimes I start an article about something of which I know little, hoping that better-informed people will make intelligent additions to it." Awadewit | talk  09:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the practice encourages ownership, and I hadn't realized that it was frowned on.


 * Certainly I do it quite routinely -- most recently with Tadahiko Hayashi and (unrelated) Takanobu Hayashi -- and nobody has yet complained; while I have of course complained about some edits to pages that I've started, I don't remember ever having been accused of attempted ownership of the page.


 * I had originally thought that it would be best to write an article and then paste it "whole" or "done" into wikipedia, but I was discouraged from doing this because it does not allow others to contribute to the editing. What is funny is that now, with an article I have been building slowly over time (as basically the only editor), I have been accused of ownership. So I'm not really sure what to do. I just thought that I would make you aware of the fact that at least some people on wikipedia discourage the "finished" approach. I have found that it reduces problems for myself, but that is not always the only consideration. Awadewit | talk  18:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a crap article that I wrote. Its edit history is about as simple as they come. I know little about the writer; I hope that those who are better informed will help. (They haven't done so yet, but I'm still hoping.) But if my memory is correct even this started out in my userspace. And although it's a crap article -- and [gulp!], I now notice, unsourced to boot -- what very little it says about the writer does not appear to be said anywhere else in WP. So although it's crap, it's not redundant.


 * Please also note that I wrote Editor at Large would have been wise to build it up in his or her userspace (emphasis added); I purposely didn't write "should have built" or similar. There was no intent to compel; it was merely advice.


 * Incidentally, my articles about the Hayashis spent most of their gestation not even in my userspace but instead on my hard drive. I recently made this innovation when I was disturbed to see very rough drafts -- not checked for factual correctness, let alone style etc. -- come up in Google searches. This was misinformation not fit for human consumption.


 * I have done that as well. Awadewit | talk  18:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And now, consider exploding houses.


 * What's your own preferred way of starting off articles? -- Hoary 10:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For subjects I know very well, I tend to write the articles before pasting them. For subjects I do not know as well, I tend to build them in wikipedia. I am not sure that I will do this again, though. I have had a bad experience with Joseph Priestley. I may just go back to doing what you do. Awadewit | talk  18:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look at the talk page of that article, but found it a lot less interesting than the article itself. Which you should take as a compliment.
 * I found that debate tiresome. Awadewit | talk  11:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is deservedly long but could be a bit shorter. A minor example from the introduction: It's entertaining (and perhaps more than that) to read that Priestley used the term "airs" for gases, but I can't see the justification for the inclusion of this bit in the introduction (which I also think is overegged with quotations). Whatever's done in the rest of the article, its introduction should be lean.


 * I find leads difficult to write. I don't think it is very good right now, but every few days I revise it some more; hopefully, it will eventually improve. The reason for "airs" is that in telling scientific history, most historians of science use the terminology from the time period so as to not retroactively think about the work in terms of modern discoveries. Since all of the scholarship follows this pattern, I have tried to do so as well, only indicating modern equivalents (if there are any) when absolutely necessary. Awadewit | talk  11:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As you'll have noticed I've made miscellaneous minor changes that I supposed would be uncontroversial; but the 18th century, religion, chemistry: just about everything here is outside my areas of (very mild) expertise and I'm afraid of making some gaffe so am being very cautious. -- Hoary 10:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These are helpful - thank you. I just hope that all of your careful changes don't get wiped away as I delete parts of the article in an effort to cut it down to a reasonable size! Awadewit | talk  11:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not irritated or anything, but now genuinely puzzled. I'd assumed that "advocated for" was a slip on your (or another editor's) part, but it now seems to be deliberate. In my own idiolect, "advocate" is transitive: Priestley advocated X, Priestley was an advocate of X; "Priestley advocated for X" is plain wrong. (Though "for" could be used for the benificiaries: "Priestley advocated education in modern history for children"). Is there a dialectal difference here? (My own English is a bit of a mishmash but definitely more British than American.) -- Hoary 11:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Ben i ficiaries"? Mishmash indeed! -- Hoary 01:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, apparently the intransitive form exists but is not the primary form any longer, according to the OED. I did search for the phrase on the web and it appears quite frequently (those seemed to be American English). If you want to change it back, that's fine - I'll try to remember not to change it again. Perhaps you could put an internal comment in the page reminding me? Thanks. I learn something new every day. Awadewit | talk  16:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ISBNs
Personally, I think the entire ISBN business is silly, but, again, the reason I have "No ISBN available" is because other people have complained, saying that I need to make it clear that there isn't an ISBN. We both know there are no ISBNs before the mid-60s or so, but I'm not sure how many people know that. I will leave your edits because they make sense to me. I just wanted to let you know why I had that ridiculous phrase in the first place. This is another battle I didn't want to fight - I have plenty of others. Awadewit | talk  22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose what struck me as particularly ridiculous was the way "ISBN" was linked each time. "No, kids, there's no ISBN. What, you don't know what an ISBN is? Let me explain." -- Hoary 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I know. I think it's even more ridiculous that each ISBN number links only to the ISBN page. How is that helpful? I think the ISBN link would only be helpful if it linked the user to a page about the book somewhere. Awadewit | talk  23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, no: the link to a specific ISBN does go to an individualized, helpful page. Try it.


 * It takes you to a page at which you have to then click yet again. I think that's new, anyway, The first time I heard about the ISBN thing and was forced to add it to an article, the clicking led me only to the ISBN article. Awadewit | talk  02:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Till recently there was a blockheaded overemphasis on ISBNs here. Before you and I crossed swords about a different matter on its talk page, I had posted my opinions on ISBNs as robustly as I dared and was somewhat surprised to get agreement on it (see what's now at the top of that talk page). -- Hoary 02:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Later today, I'm going to kill that silly infobox for the second time. The morons [yeah right, "NPA"; so sue me] may demand its return, but we don't have to go out of our way to appease the morons, meeting their expected demands before they've even bothered to express them. (Cf Pierre Rossier, RFA with no infobox.) -- Hoary 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Awadewit | talk  23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

salvia

 * Well I'm glad someone has identified the double standards being imposed here. However, I would also like to add that there are citations provided from a webpage that is a commercial distributor of Salvia. The sections entitled Ingestion, After effects, and Controversy are also dubious relative to the criticisms that were leveled at the You Tube entry. Also, the Erowid study being cited (Baggot) was based on questionnaire response, it was not a scientifically based qualitative study, it was a personal interest study based on quantitative analysis. This Salvia Divinorum entry is currently not of encyclopedic quality: it's a drug users "how to" guide that is being controlled by a commercial interest and a bunch of drug geeks. Where can I make a complaint so that this will be addressed? added at 17:18, 24 June 2007 by 143.117.78.169

Thank you for the question. Offhand, I'm not sure. I'll look into it and I'll get back to you (here) in a few hours. (In the meantime, I have to attend to the demands of the "real world".)

In the meantime, here's what you should do:
 * Get in the habit of signing your contributions to talk pages (you just hit "~" four times in a row).
 * Apologize to IvorShandor and/or the world in general for your language on that talk page. (You don't have to retract your substantive complaints, though you may wish to consider some of these too.)
 * Consider whether you can really substantiate your allegation that the article is "a drug users 'how to' guide that is being controlled by a commercial interest and a bunch of drug geeks". That's a pretty strong allegation; note the difference between (a) an unusual degree of compatibility with a commercial interest and (b) control by that commercial interest, and that between (a) a number of proponents of freedom in recreational drug use and (b) "a bunch of drug geeks".

And here's what you might also do: Hoary 23:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Get a user ID and use it.
 * Go through the article and splatter it with tags and the like where appropriate. (I note that you have recently made several edits to the page. Perhaps you have already done this kind of thing; I haven't checked.)

Please read WP:NPOV and try to apply what it says and have other editors do the same. (Coolth and politeness will be important here.) You might also attempt to generate some interest in the article from a different kind of editor: try here. If all of this fails, please read WP:DR. -- Hoary 03:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

For your information
,. Exploding Boy 05:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_collegiate_secret_societies
Please comment. Corvus cornix 23:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mora
Hello. On June 10th you moved Go-kon to Gōkon. I have no problem with this move and would have done it myself if I had seen it earlier. However, in your comment you wrote: "It's trimoraic, and I don't see any reason for a hyphen." This is not correct. Gōkon has four mora: go-o-ko-n. Pitch accent may change through long vowels. By the way, it is bisyllabic: gō-kon. FYI. Bendono 07:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course you're absolutely right. What a dumb mistake! I must have been even sleepier than usual.


 * The articles on Japanese subjects are riddled with oddities like this, some of them internal inconsistencies (e.g. the writers don't even manage to consistently ignore a 長音).


 * Incidentally, while I wasn't in complete agreement with you over the "let's rename the 'Iwo Jima' article" saga (which I dropped out of when I lacked the energy even to skimread the earlier comments), you made a lot more sense than a number of people. Still, one can hardly blame those who don't happen to know Japanese. In today's (yesterday's?) English-language newspaper, I was reading of something or other in "Iwo Jima" (or "Iwojima"), which (the article told me) had just been renamed "Iwoto". Duh! -- Hoary 07:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

From James Nightshade
Hoary: recall that your wrote a critique and suggestions in response to my call for suggestions for my paper to be presented at Wikipedia in Taipei in August. Thanks again for your comments. Would it be okay if I quoted you in my paper, in a section that addresses your concerns and other problems with Wikipedia? I want to quote these words: “I don't get the impression that the ‘conceptual organization’ is improving at all. There is [instead] increasing dogmatism about the inclusion of certain trivial information at the start of any article.”

Thanks again, and please let me know. Take care. Who wields me, wields the world! 04:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only is it fair use, it's also GFDL! So of course you can.


 * I wrote that comment when in a grumpy mood. A bit later I was less grumpy but thought no less bleakly. I explored my bleak ideas a bit further, in two or three paragraphs. I was about to upload them but made a silly computer mistake so the whole lot got lost. So you were spared that. -- Hoary 04:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all, and thanks, the paper is definitely better with your input. I also turned to Andrew Keen's thoughts, which you might follow. The balance is much better than my straight-ahead idealistic views. Who wields me, wields the world! 07:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

re "666old man's child 666"
Hi, thanks for your message. When blocking users, I usually use WP:TWINKLE to display a standard "blocked" template on their talk page. All the templates available through Twinkle include the "If you think this block is unjustified..." bit by default. Waggers 12:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for this revert:. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Babbpressbook-b.jpeg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Babbpressbook-b.jpeg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Somebody put in a bot that doen not seem to be working correctly. Look here Possibly_unfree_images/2007_July_5 -Nv8200p talk 04:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Manual of Style
The online Chicago Manual of Style (which I registered for just to get this information) has the following suggestion:
 * 9.36 Centuries


 * Particular centuries are spelled out and lowercased. See also 9.38.


 * the twenty-first century


 * the eighth and ninth centuries


 * the eighteen hundreds (the nineteenth century)

Here is the link. I don't know if it will work if you are not registered. I am not crazy. :) Awadewit | talk  12:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, I'm sure.


 * A decade or more ago, I took style guides terribly seriously. What they told me to do, I did. I think now that I must have been very insecure back then. Now I usually know what's right, so I seldom consult style guides (though I recently did have to write something strictly according to the LSA, which was a bit unfamiliar to me). As style guides go, Chicago is a good one, as it's sufficiently capacious to give useful advice for resolving knotty problems, and also because it (or anyway the 14th edition, the latest that I possess) doesn't like to lay down the law, instead giving preferences and suggestions. (Contrast that with the repellently dogmatic stripey MLA paperbacks, which start with excellent advice on plagiarism for first-year undergrads, but go on to prescribe horrors like "U California P" [if concision is the aim, why not "U Calif P"?].) Now I only blow the dust off Chicago occasionally and in order to settle disputes. If I had any need for my own copy of a newer edition (and I don't), this would change my mind. -- Hoary 14:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I cared when I was an undergraduate. Now I realize that there are multiple styles. :) You might enjoy this essay about the horrors of footnotes, etc. from the New Yorker. [www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~wellerst/docs/Menand_The_End_Matter.pdf]. Awadewit | talk  21:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Awadewit; I finally got around to getting ("accessing") and reading Menand's piece. It's immediately clear that Menand is a sensible fellow when we read his italicized statement that "Microsoft Word is a terrible program". (The inexorable rise of M$W and its imitators and the fall of such alternatives as XyWrite and Nota Bene is surely one of the black jokes of late capitalism.) He puts it more strongly (and of course more wittily) than I did: The only reasons to buy ["Chicago"] are (1) that you want to start up a press and (2) that you want it to be exactly like the University of Chicago Press. Or of course that you're pitifully insecure, have an authoritarian personality, or for some other reason are comforted by the perusal of long lists of prescriptions.


 * Yesterday I bought an odd book by the prolific Laurie Bauer, The Linguistics Student's Handbook. It's something like "Useful stuff that's hardly mentioned in either your main textbooks or Crystal's linguistics/phonetics dictionary". Chapters 34 and 35, "Citation Etiquette" and "Reference Lists" total fewer than twenty pages and tell most WP editors all that they need to know. Bauer cites one squib by Pullum but doesn't mention another that appears in the same book (The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax) on the matter of what to do about competing claims to the same insight: "Citation etiquette beyond Thunderdome". By Pullum's standards, this is a rather arid squib; still, even if you have little or no interest in linguistics you might enjoy aspects of it (very likely downloadable from one or other of the academic paper sites to which your library subscribes) and indeed other papers by Pullum as well. (Particularly recommended: "The linguistics of defamation".) -- Hoary 00:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll look those up - I'm glad you enjoyed the essay. Awadewit | talk  02:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just click here for another one: "Punctuation and human freedom". -- Hoary 03:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome. Awadewit | talk  03:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Incidentally, I have one complaint on the appearance of my sig, and you're the first to mention the markup length. I'm considering those issues. Take care! -- But | seriously | folks   09:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tips for writing biographies
I was reading your changes to WikiProject_Biography, and I think the whole process of creating a page in a userspace sandbox may be too confusing for new editors (which is who these tips were aimed at). Firstly, they need to understand how to create a subpage, then they need to know why copying and pasting is OK here (because they are the only contributor) and not elsewhere. It is better that people know how to move articles around properly, rather than be left thinking that cut and paste is the right way to do any sort of move. I made some changes, but am still not happy with the end result and am thinking of reverting to the earlier version before your edit. What do you think? Carcharoth 17:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you were to revert, you might consider the risk that when walking home tonight you might encounter some great homicidal maniac coming after you armed with a bunch of loganberries.


 * But you may have a point, all the same. Let me take another look. -- Hoary 22:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope loganberries are soft... :-) I'm happy with it now, though I don't get the bit where you say moving the page would "force you to re-create your user sub-page". Surely you just get left with a redirect which you can overwrite with your next article? That's what I see other people doing all the time - no need to re-create anything, as far as I can see. Step 7 should really be done before copy stuff over, but that is all I can think of. I'm sure others will operate on your prose with surgical precision. There was a big discussion on the talk page you could look at as well, which did mention how getting this to be accessible to new editors was important. I personally think that we are missing a trick here. Someone should create an article by this process, and then use diffs to link to pages showing how all this is done. Surely someone must have done that before on Wikipedia? Carcharoth 00:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, but you then have to explain (or link to an explanation of) how to overwrite (or indeed do anything to) redirects.


 * Copying and pasting avoids cluttering up the editing history of the resulting article. (The clutter doesn't much matter, it's true.)


 * As I mentioned in my edit summary, one aspect of the instructions that rather worried me was the repetition of "your article". Of course I understand the spirit in which this was written and also imagine that it would be largely read as intended. Still, there's a non-negligible risk that some readers would have their ideas of ownership reinforced by this. I like the two-stage business: First the proto-article is in my userspace and it's mine (to improve, to fix embarrassing mistakes without others looking), so don't touch it, thanks all the same; and thereafter it's an (not "my") article and invites improvement by you or anyone else.


 * Well, I'm not going to volunteer to create an article by this system and show the diffs, not at all as a matter of principle (I agree that it's a good idea) but instead for several simple reasons. among them: (i) I don't remember having written an article that I thought would be improved by an "infobox" and I can't envisage ever doing so; (ii) I rarely if ever have any image that isn't merely "FU" [lovely abbreviation].


 * You may have noticed one deliberate simplification. While there's nothing wrong with using a lot of kinds of images in one's userspace, there's plenty wrong (say the image police) with using a FU image there, even for a short time. That's a distinction that I thought would confuse, which is why I ruled out the use of any image.


 * Another thing I didn't say was this. On googling this or that person, I've been embarrassed and irritated to be presented with an embryonic proto-article in my userspace, replete with typos and misinformation. So these days I try to do as much writing as possible not there but instead on my own hard drive. Ideally it's all marked up (with footnotes, even) and ready to go by the time I upload it to my userspace, where it spends a mere day or so as I check links, etc. However, this would seem a rather austere procedure for most newbies. -- Hoary 01:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good points. Especially the WP:OWN one. You've convinced me. Carcharoth 01:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
...Hoary, for your insightful contributions to the Biography assessment drive issues. I think there are some of us who are not feeling quite so alone now with regard to the assessments, infoboxes, and a few other things. (And thank you Carcharoth, if you are reading this, for your consistently reasonable commentary, as well). Perhaps things shall improve now. Ever the optimist, Antandrus (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RV on your edit
I apologize for the flat out reversion vs keeping what you had wrote. Parentheses, to me at least, have always indicated an informal tone and when writing a guide I always try to maintain an informal voice. I may be entirely wrong and I concede that sometimes my wording can be overly... flowery. I do need to work on the sentence (the one with the word look) and today has not been one of my better days off from work (after playing musical chairs with court houses to obtain paperwork is draining). --Ozgod 03:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick question
Hoary – On the talk page of the 1a page towards which you have an ambivalent attitude, a reader has queried the construction of one of my examples. Your opinion would be appreciated. (See the spaced en-dash? I behave myself on your talk page.) Tony 12:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, anyone who perpetrates a dash violation on my user talk page leaves in a box. One strike and you're out! Zero tolerance!! [splutters, trembles, clutches his heart, drops to the floor]


 * “Born the youngest child of a Mexican immigrant couple, her talent was apparent from infancy.” Here, “Born” is assumed in the word “child”; therefore the sentence works better without the first word.


 * If I'm going to quibble, I'd say that it works just as well with or without the first word. It's just that the first word brings in five unnecessary bytes (or one unnecessary syllable/lexeme/morpheme); IFF this is an issue, then the word should be cut.


 * Don't you think that an even worse problem is the misattachment of the subject?


 * No I certainly don't. The "misattachment", such as it is, is unproblematic.


 * Let's do some substitution:


 * “Born the youngest child of a Mexican immigrant couple, her secretary was bilingual.”


 * Here the adjunct phrase [I think it's called; I don't have any grammar book on me] is one that could apply to any person, and thus of course to anybody referred to has "her" or anybody referred to as "secretary". It seems to refer to what I'll provisionally call the head of the noun phrase. But consider this:


 * “Born the youngest child of a Mexican immigrant couple, her secretary was from pure New England stock.”


 * This strikes me as very poorly written English -- but yet understandable, and even idiomatic in a gruesome sort of way.


 * But in your own example one person is involved and the adjunct is pragmatically appropriate only for the non-person; I think there's no problem at all.


 * Somebody may claim that the above just proves that my "native intuition" is shot to hell and that that the whole business is cut and dried: the adjunct can only refer to the head of the NP. A good counter to that would be to point out that the (lexical) NP is, according to a major strain in contemporary syntactic analysis, merely the complement of a (functional) determiner phrase (DP) whose head (in your example) is the determiner her; and bingo, the adjunct refers to this determiner.


 * I might be able to answer more intelligibly a few hours from now when less sleepy; stay tuned. -- Hoary 14:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * PS I think that this is a variant of the non-issue wittily discussed here. -- Hoary 03:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * PPS I've now looked in the big book, Huddleston and Pullum's Cambridge Grammar. Putting aside the complexity of her talent, the closest example I can find is Too afraid to venture out, Kim stayed barricaded in the house all week (p.1359). It's described as an adjectival phrase supplement. Huddleston, Payne and Peterson (the authors of this chapter) term Kim the anchor of the AdjP (p.1351): they point out that Kim is not the head, and that the syntactic relationship is hazy.


 * Let's play with their example: Too fragile for commercial success, Kim's talent remained unknown outside her circle of friends. That's OK, and in my idiolect fragile here refers to the talent and not Kim. However, a talent can hardly be shy, so let's try: Too shy ever to audition, Kim's talent remained unknown outside her circle of friends. Hmm, that seems iffy: neither good nor bad.


 * It would be interesting to read more about this -- not from a "language maven" but from a real linguist who has studied it dispassionately. Maybe some corpus linguistics that has used "good" written English. I'm sure that there are studies out there. -- Hoary 11:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was me who brought this up, so may I explain?


 * "Too shy ever to audition, Kim's talent remained unknown outside her circle of friends." Hmm, that seems iffy: neither good nor bad.


 * To me, it's bad. The reader is led to expect the opening descriptive phrase to be in apposition to the main subject; but "Kim's talent" is the main subject, and a talent can't be shy. The same applies to Tony's example: "The youngest child of a Mexican immigrant couple, her talent was apparent from infancy.” You need to say something like: "The youngest child of a Mexican immigrant couple, Imelda showed talent from infancy".qp10qp 14:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to my hazy understanding of apposition, it's not even in apposition. Kim and talent are both (if we can put aside the business about determiners for a moment) nouns; apposition would thus imply a noun:


 * A rare gift, Kim's talent remained. . . .


 * ??? A Mexican immigrant, Kim's talent remained. . . .


 * However, in the ageing third edition (the only one I have) of his Dict of Linguistics and Phonetics, even David Crystal admits confusion over apposition, so we needn't feel guilty about our own confusion.


 * In that latter example, yes, talent indeed cannot be shy; and for me this is what allows Kim to anchor the supplement. But I'll concede that it's not entirely right, and of course our idiolects may differ.


 * The good news is that the original offending sentence is remarkably easy to fix, and I've (I hope) fixed it. -- Hoary 03:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers. But may I just say that an appositive phrase doesn't have to contain a noun. A noun may be merely understood.


 * We can talk about this without mentioning apposition, though, which I admit is a grammatically complex term. It's just a question of an opening phrase that heralds a different noun from the main subject of the sentence. "As reconstructed by the police, Smith denied the murder." "Speeding at a hundred miles an hour, the wall was shattered by the runaway lorry." "Always a flamboyant dresser, John's shirt glowed in the dark".qp10qp 18:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony's response

My dear Hoary, your fix is much appreciated, as is your thought-provoking answer to my "quick" query (you must have written very fast to have done justice to the title).

A few issues arise from your discussion above.
 * I've bookmarked the language log site, which looks worth checking from time to time.
 * "Maven"? You sent me scuttling to the dictionary.
 * "Ageing"? Have you been infected with AusEng?
 * Mexican stock impure?
 * "It was me who brought ...". Hmmm, don't know about this, but see MAK Halliday on the issue of "It is me", which Shakespeare uses occasionally. Which is the subject? Halliday asks. Try "It am I", he says to the pedants.

It's a while since we conferred, and a number of matters have built up. I've forgiven you for the cream-bun incident (towards the bottom of that section). And you'll be pleased to know that I was swayed partly by your arguments to accept spaced en dashes as an alternative to unspaced em dashes in our recent overhaul of hyphens and dashes at MOS. (We got rid of the chaotic MOSDASH, by the way, and forced the issue among the conservative tech-heads about ending the stupid proscription of en dashes in article titles.)

Without knowing your attitude to gender-neutral language, I'd like to canvass your opinion on (1) whether it's a bad idea in principal to develop a guideline for MOS on using GNL in WP, and (2) the use of the "singular they". Here's a forerunner to the storm that will no doubt erupt over this issue. The second issue will arise because, if I go ahead and develop a section, I'll need to set out ways of avoiding the use of the generic male/female pronoun. I stoop to avoid the singular they, as I suspect you do, but it's becoming increasingly common in real life and is even recommended as an option by ?the Oxford Companion to the English Language. In my section, I'd be framing it as an "if all else fails" option. Your thoughts? You may be interested in reading this. Tony 06:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, I like the cream pie. (The first time I'd read that.)


 * "Maven" seems to be a term of approval that people apply to themselves or to others who hardly merit the approval. "Language mavens" are the people who comment on their own language (and particularly others' failings in it) in the pages of middlebrow newspapers and the like. They vary among themselves: some are well-informed and witty, others are underinformed and witless. But even those who are better informed seldom seem to have thought long and hard about the general issues (as opposed to specific lexemes) that they're discussing. See chapter 12, "The Language Mavens', of Pinker's The Language Instinct.


 * To the main points. GNL: yes, why ever not? But as a matter of principle in WP? Well, that depends. If I may coopt a major theoretical concept introduced by this genius, we create an encyclopedia with the pool of editors that we have, not the one that we want. The pool that we have include some rather cranky people who have made perhaps irritating but nevertheless amicable contributions to this forerunner. But you've so far only had to deal with the WP equivalent of this fellow. You haven't yet had to deal with excoriation by WP emulators of this one. And of course you haven't yet been overrun by angry white blimps, who will squawk and screech about how such "PC" requirements cooked up by a "liberal elite" are political censorship that prove that WP is a giant left-wing conspiracy blah blah blah ad nauseam and some way beyond. You will be. They'll be no more inclined to sit down and concentrate whatever intelligence they have on any reasoning for by you than you would to read the works of this philosophe. And when that happens, even if you were the administrator that you very understandably don't want to be, you'd lack the time and energy (let alone the right) to permaban all these fine, upstanding editors for flagrant breaches of WP:DICK, WP:LIMPBORE, WP:CRACKER, WP:FLATEARTH, WP:TROGLODYTE or whatever. Do you really want to waste months of your free time on this?


 * Singular they? Again, yes, why ever not? And as for that lovely radio speech by Geoff Pullum, yes, I've known of it for quite some time. -- Hoary 08:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be in favour of providing some good advice about how to avoid gender-specific language, though it should be advice and not instruction, in my opinion. Much the best trick is to alter to the plural, since that circumvents the need to use he or she: I find that works in almost every case, though one often needs to adjust other parts of the sentence to agree.


 * I would be very cautious about deprecating the singular "they". For stylistic reasons, it should be avoided when too closely following a singular subject ("If a person dislikes butter, they shouldn't eat it"); the plural subject trick will usually cure this easily enough. But the singular "they" has a remarkable pedigree—I have traced examples as far back as the fourteenth century. When I looked at the early examples carefully, I came to the conclusion that this form of "they" is not actually a simple plural; it arose as a hybrid form for representing the singular and plural at once (semantically, this is sometimes needed—for example: "Every member of the group went to look for mushrooms, and they returned with more than they could eat"). You find this cross-mixture of third-person singular and plural in many European languages; but in English we have started to object to it as incorrect. Strictly speaking, it isn't.qp10qp 18:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot of that seems sensible but there are some odd touches. I see nothing wrong with "If a person dislikes butter, they shouldn't eat it", which is not to deny that there are idiomatic alternatives, notably the shorter "People who dislike butter shouldn't eat it." I don't consider that "we" have started to object to "singular 'they'" as incorrect; rather, I see a small class within society (a class to which I don't belong) as having objected to it a generation or more ago. They may not be much interested in corpus and other linguistic research, but if they are interested they must either conclude that they're wrong or that a great number of people normally considered excellent writers of English are wrong.


 * I must add that this stuff doesn't really interest me very much. Linguistics has much more to offer. Today in the train I was reading about such matters as spray/load -- the different nuances between, say (a) I loaded the truck with hay and (b) I loaded hay into the truck -- and Kiparsky's approach (in terms of a kind of hierarchy of Case) to explaining this kind of thing. My tip: buy a good introductory linguistics book (I like the one by Radford et al, as it's excellently written and sufficiently compact to be held in one hand) and get stuck into it. -- Hoary 16:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I suppose, like Tony, I'm mainly interested in good writing and get rather carried away on the subject.qp10qp 18:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I figured a tag was a tag.
I didn't know you could remove prod tags; I thought they were handled just like speedy deletes: it was left to be decided. HalfShadow 01:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Count Dracula
Perhaps you can help out here since you are an administrator: There is a quasi edit war going on between me and this editor. I'll be brief; he claims there was consensus on Talk:Dracula that the disambiguation links must be included on top of the Count Dracula article. I see no indication of a consensus reached on that, this is why I am removing the dabs per WP:HAT manual of style. What I find even more disruptive from the user is that he reverted all of the other edits I did on that page. I'm not going to revert again unless something can be decided on. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Lord Sesshomaru


 * OK, I'll look at it, probably two hours or so from now. Um, could you possibly take a look at the recent history of the -- as far as I know Dracula-unrelated! -- Frank Stefanko? Thanks! Hoary 22:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've suggested for all those subjects be listed in the section "See also", not in the dabs. I'm trying to follow WP:HAT but the other user refuses to abide by that manual of style. Lord Sesshomaru


 * I'm going to revert Colin4C on that page by following the consensus of WP:HAT. This user is the only one for those useless dabs, basically for nothing. Lord Sesshomaru


 * I disagree with you. Whatever WP:HAT may say, those dabs hardly seem useless, as long as you want to warn would-be "contributors" away from the article while various other factors (most conspicuously the photo of Christopher Lee) are implicitly urging them to contribute "popular culture" crapola. You (and he) should forget the relatively minor issue of "hatnotes" for a time, and decide what the article is supposed to be about: it sends off contradictory signals. Please read my fuller explanation in the talk page, and discuss it there rather than here. (Meanwhile, try to avoid calling him "disruptive".) -- Hoary 10:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous silly behavior
Oh I'm so sorry! And yes that other IP address is mine, well was.

. . . added at 20:32, 23 July 2007 by 71.96.238.229

thanks
something odd is going on with the apparently innocuous article on Franz Mandl--have you any idea what's happening? for the moment I've protected the article. DGG (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My guess is that the IP and the UID are the same, and he's pissed off about the earlier deletion of some trivia that he posted, and wants to point out that a lot of WP is similarly insignificant. He's just another teen. -- Hoary 04:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Do I know you?
What question? I'm just trying to see what I can to help Wikipedia. And it's the first time that I'm experimenting with templates and see if I'm doing it right. And besides, can't your talk page also be what they call a "sandbox"? I'm just a person testing out things. Is that, umm... wrong? ... posted by 04:30, 26 July 2007 by Artisol2345


 * I can't see any use of templates in the history of your user talk page. What I see is a history of illicit removal of templates that clearly say they shouldn't be removed and illicit replacement of templates that clearly say they shouldn't be replaced. On your user page you claim that you're a native speaker of English (although your ditransitive use below of imply suggests otherwise); the text on these templates should be easy for you to understand. -- Hoary 04:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

huh?
So what? That's my name for the other computer keyed on to the same IP Address. And im just trying to help things. And I don't use Duane Otani anymore, and once again I'm just testing out templates. What? I think templates are fun. Can we use them on sandboxes? And can i use deletion templates on sandboxes? just wnat to know things!

edit: Wow, even I know that in Wikipedia you shouldnt use profane words like 'dicking.' And youre implying me an idiot. ... added in a series of edits circa 04:34, 26 July 2007 by 68.4.220.10


 * If you think templates are fun, have your fun with them in sandboxes.


 * If you think that "dicking around" is an inaccurate or inappropriate way of describing your activities on Wikipedia, perhaps you'd like to suggest a better alternative. Please sign your comment (hit the "~" key four times in a row). -- Hoary 04:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to talk to me like that, here's a "better alternative:" At least say it with the word "please." And that Duane Otani was my former account. I thought you needed a username to create an article under that name. But I didn't create that article well enough. And I tested out the block template with my user accounts on each other. And I was jsut learning about the deletion templates a couple days ago. And I was JUST testing those out, too. Except I thought the article Franz Mandl was supposed to be deleted due to lack of information. I must have gotten confused with "notable articles". (Sorry) Fine, if you want me to sign it so bad, here: 68.4.220.10 04:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Jeez...


 * Thank you for signing.


 * OK then, do you think that you understand how to use the "PROD" and "AfD" templates now?


 * If you think that Mandl's degree of notability is so low that his article should be deleted, you are as welcome as anybody to launch the (rather tedious) AfD process to attempt to have it deleted. However, I recommend that you do some reading of other such arguments at WP:AFD before you start. That way you're more likely to do a proficient job and end up with a decision to delete. -- Hoary 05:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think Mandl's article is low. I must have misunderstood Wikipedia's deletion policy. And, once again... since you want it so bad... (Artisol2345 05:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)) And to be honest... I also do not understand the clear meaning of "notability".

And I'm also (once again saying) testing out on one article and it just happened to be Franz Mandl. Besides, shouldn't it have some "stub" tag (or whatever they call it)?


 * The stub marking isn't an obligation. It could have it, perhaps it should have it, but it doesn't have to have it. -- Hoary 05:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you find articles?
Just wondering, how do you spot newly created articles or stuff like that? Since you just happen to be an "experienced editor," I would like to know how you spot articles like Franz Mandl. I only found that one from the random article link.

Also, if you don't mind, could you tell me how long have you stayed at Wikipedia? 05:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have various pages on my watchlist. Mandl's page wasn't among them, but you (as an IP) mentioned its impending deletion on a page that was on my watchlist. It's unusual for an IP to make such an announcement, so I investigated.


 * Here's my first edit. (I'd completely forgotten about it, but reached it via "User contributions|Oldest".) -- Hoary 05:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages
Really? A user should not remove signed comments? You posted a link to the comment guidelines page, and it showed me this message. Well, I think this message might contradict your intentions:

"Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:"

And it said this...


 * "On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred and removing comments without any reason is generally regarded uncivil. The text of another user's comment, however, may never be directly edited to misrepresent the person or change the meaning of the comment."

So wikipeidans "prefer" to archive it on the page. Sure, we can't edit the comments of other users, but the guidelines never said a user can't remove comments off their own user pages. 05:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC) ''... posted by User:Artisol2345''


 * Yes, Artisol2345, you can remove comments from User talk:Artisol2345. You can't remove comments from an IP's user talk page.


 * You seem to be keen on roads. I suggest that you edit articles on roads. You'll enjoy it. People will find the results useful (a contrast with this kind of thing). -- Hoary 05:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I like roads. I have been editing articles on roads lately. I also edit Aliso Niguel High School, but I can't seem to edit that info box, not to mention I can't undo it due to it saying "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits." Do you know any proper template that can fit into school infoboxes? Artisol2345 06:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You ought to be able to click this link and work from there. Offhand, I know nothing about school infoboxes. -- Hoary 06:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(sighs)
Hoary, look at my response and tell me what you think. Lord Sesshomaru