User talk:Hoary/Archive31

Global account
Hi Hoary! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello DerHexer, thank you for your trouble.


 * Well, this is a somewhat complex business. I'd forgotten all about a number of those accounts, but anyway logged into as many as I could and for each changed its PW to the one I use here. Nine (or so) are now "attached" to this account. Nine more are ready to be "attached": I've tried to attach them three or four times but each time have been greeted by "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem"; I'll try it again later.


 * Just two are still problematic:


 * nl.wikipedia.org
 * it.wikipedia.org


 * Sorry, I've lost the password for each, and didn't supply an email address for either. Neither has had more than token use so I don't mind if it's renamed out of the way in April. If you have a better suggestion, I'm all ears.


 * After I'd realized I'd lost the PW for nl:WP, I created and made slight use of the UID "Hoary.again". I don't intend to use it again, and if I can regain control of "Hoary" at nl:WP, I won't use it again. It's a global account. You may wish to render it unusable (e.g. by giving it a new PW that you won't divulge to me). -- Hoary (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * PS Special:MergeAccount hasn't been working (for me) for hours: same old error message citing a server problem. -- Hoary (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just forwarding this server issue to people in charge. After merging your local accounts, I can easily usurp the nlwiki account as it has no visible edits. The itwiki account can be merged with your global account as its single only edit refers to your enwiki account, a developer will insert your email address so that you can request a new passwort. Once the account merge tool will be available by approximately late January 2015, stewards could easily even merge your both accounts. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but I'm still stuck at the early stage. What I could easily do very very roughly 24 hours ago but not very very roughly 12 hours ago, I still can't do, instead being told:


 * Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.
 * If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below.
 *  Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MergeAccount&action=submit, from [IP] via cp1066 cp1066 (IP:3128), Varnish XID 1847728130 
 * Forwarded for: [IPs]
 * Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Sat, 03 Jan 2015 23:21:26 GMT


 * This had gone on so long that I thought I'd report it (I mean, complete with IP numbers). Phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/create/ says: "You can use your unified Wikimedia account or your Labs/LDAP user to login." I wishfully ignored the "unified" part, logged in via Wikimedia, and was told: "To use Connected Apps on this site, you must have an account across all projects. When you have an account on all projects, you can try to connect 'phabricator-production' again."


 * Oh well, I'll try again tomorrow. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I tried Special:MergeAccount about 12 hours ago; I was told that "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem". I tried it a few minutes ago; I was told that "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem". Something is wrong: is it with the servers or with me? -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

From my quick investigation it looks like you're running into T78727. Legoktm (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I shall have to consume at least one more coffee before tackling that page and attempting to work the implications for me of what it says..... Hoary (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The simplified version is that for some reason the server is running out of memory while trying to merge your accounts, so it fails. There's currently an update planned which should resolve the issue, I'll let you know when that is deployed so you can try again. Legoktm (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The server and me ... we seem to have something in common. Thank you for your help! -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Our developers deployed a bug fix that might solve your issues. Could you please try again and tell us if it improved? :-) Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 01:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for trying to help, but alas no:
 *  Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MergeAccount&action=submit, from [IP] via cp1066 cp1066 (IP:3128), Varnish XID 2370590536 
 *  Forwarded for: [IPs] 
 *  Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Fri, 09 Jan 2015 06:45:53 GMT 
 * -- Hoary (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just had another patch deployed which should help to make this problem less severe. It would be nice, if you could try it again, but I sadly can't guarantee you anything. -Hoo man (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aha, this time it is different. No error message from the server. Instead, I'm told that my accounts at el.wikipedia.org (which I'd forgotten all about), nl.wikipedia.org and it.wikipedia.org still need a password. I can't provide it -- actually, them, because I've mislaid them. So I'm told that "Login unification not complete!" A thought occurs to me: "not complete" in which way? So I tried going to be.wikipedia.org (to which I've never before logged in) and logging in there in just the same way as I'd log in to en.wikipedia.org. It worked! -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, I've usurped the elwiki and nlwiki account according to m:Usurpation policy as they had no visible edits. I could do the same but as the only itwiki edit directly links to your enwiki account, so that it might be more senseful to ask Hoo man to insert your email address which will allow you to request a new passwort on itwiki and merge it with your global account by submitting the new password on it:Special:MergeAccount as well. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did that, you can now request a new password for your it.wikipedia account on it:Speciale:CambiaPassword. After that you can go back to Special:MergeAccount and merge that account with your global account. - Hoo man (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I tried it and received no error message. But I also haven't yet received any email. Perhaps mail will be waiting for me when I wake up. -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Odd BLP
Perhaps an admin should look at this: Shina Animashaun, supposedly a 21-year old "philanthropist" founds a school in London. Trouble is that one of the sources shows his name at attending some school (OK?), the other two discuss the founding of the school but do not mention his name. So I reckon this as zero evidence, and PROD it. The IP has come back and removed the PROD... ? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * But an admin wouldn't do anything with it that a non-admin wouldn't. I think that the article on this person (Esq) should go to AfD. I'd send it there myself if I weren't busy juggling my various accounts (see the section immediately above) and if my computer were in a mood to display Flash or whatever it is that one of the three claimed sources is using. As for the other two "sources", if you were to send this to AfD then be sure to point out that neither even mentions this person. Also google for him, just in case he is written up elsewhere (which I think unlikely). -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * PS I notice that the boilerplate that you added to the user talk page reads in part "Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced." The author removed it even though the article wasn't sourced. So an admin probably could do something about this. But since the article does assert notability (incredibly, but still...), and since it doesn't look remotely libellous, it's better to be cautious. Just be sure to start off the AfD with a statement that explains enough: an extra ten minutes invested in this can save thirty minutes in responses to later questions. -- Hoary (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Those edits were getting annoying. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Though I enjoyed the edits, I also thank you. Their star shone too bright to last. DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  14:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PDFTT. -- Hoary (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Suspect vandalism
See this diff -- the user just got warned for vandalism. I know nothing about this band etc etc etc, but seems to me there's a high probability this is also vandalism. I don't have time or patience to investigate: should I (1) revert anyway (2) revert and put note on talk page or (3) something else. Grateful for suggestions. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm very sleepy, and therefore may be missing something. While I note that this editor (i) provides no explanation for his changes of numbers and (ii) has repeatedly been warned about vandalism before, his changes appear to bring the text in line with the content of the tables in the same article. Perhaps the tabular material is not what it at first seems, and I could investigate that ... but my bed is more inviting. -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Redlinked photographers
Well, I was going to settle in this evening with my mathematical bibliographies, but then I found this.

Yeah, we could stand having an article on Gianni Berengo Gardin.

Thanks for the to-do list.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Glad you like what you see! Here's another excellent photo by the man.


 * But please, no stub. Article, yes; stub, no. -- Hoary (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Initial notes are here: User talk:Lesser Cartographies/sandbox/Gianni Berengo Gardin. Can you wrangle a couple of photographs into commons? Or tell me how to deal with the copyright issues? Thanks, Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * [Frowny face] Well, they're only initial notes, aren't they? [Smiley face] Initial notes for a Featured Article, it would seem. [Frowny face] Only a year's worth of work to be done!


 * No, really, excellent. Thank you very much.


 * I normally start my own articles on photographers with a list of books. The list is useful in itself; it looks impressive (and tends to scare away would-be senders to AfD); and the sources don't have to be specified. Then I move on to exhibitions: the list might be useful, and it usually brings an impressive number of references (which tend to scare away ditto). Then, if my stamina suffices, I start to think about the meat of the article. (For David Goldblatt, it didn't suffice. And I know he's had a bunch of additional books and exhibitions since March 2011, when I started my "short break" from editing there.)


 * Right then, books. I know GBG has put out quite a lot. Proto-article sez:


 * Of his 250 published books. . . .


 * Holy freedom fries. This calls for a different approach.


 * How would you like to proceed? (Perhaps: You and me edit in your sandbox till the result looks like an article, and then I move it to article space?)


 * Oh, your question. In short, no. For a photo to be in Commons, it would have to be copyleft (example). That would be hard to accomplish. If a particular photo were discussed within the article, then a small JPEG of it could be uploaded here, citing "fair use". See this as an example (though I'm surprised that such a large JPEG is permissible). -- Hoary (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the example of a fair use rationale. That's exactly what I needed. And many thanks for the kind words.

I didn't have any expectation that you'd be helping out, but I'd be more than happy to have any time and expertise you can spare.

I'm going to be hitting a couple of good university research libraries over the next week and will hopefully be able to add some material that google missed. I'm afraid, though, that nearly all of the useful material is going to be in Italian, which I do not read. Still, let's run with it and see what happens.

I like the idea of generating the bibliography and I am competent to manually scrape worldcat to get most of them. Let's get as close to 250 as we can into the proto-article and then discuss whether we should break out a separate bibliography article once the main article goes live.

I don't have much of a clue as to how to verify individual exhibitions, so if you're looking for a place to dive in I'll leave that to you. (I expect the books will be referring to exhibitions and exhibitions will be referring to books, so I'm not expecting this to be silo'd efforts.)

Looking forward to collaborating with you.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's get as close to 250 as we can into the proto-article: gods no, unless you have preternatural reserves of time and energy. How about starting with what's already in the notes, and scraping Worldcat for more in English only (perhaps in Italian too). -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

One of my ongoing projects is a bibliography of Paul Erdos. His main published bibliography listed 1525 publications. I managed to dig up ~300 more. I'm now reconciling the published bibliography with what I was able to dig out of Zentralblatt MATH and Mathematical Reviews. When I took a break I was trying to figure out how to write a BibTeX to UTF8 translator in Lua. (Did you know that wikimedia's software can't deal with 1500 cite journal templates? I didn't either...)  So yeah, 250 books is a walk in the park....  250 books shouldn't be in the biographical article, but a bibliographical article on him would make a nice featured list..... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * BibTex to UTF8? My head's threatening to explode. (Do you perhaps mean BibTex to Mediawiki?) Yes, I have experienced template breakdown, but nothing so baronial. So OK, let's go walkies in the park. I love the idea of a Featured List of books by somebody only 0.1% of our readers will ever have heard of. It could be one small blow against idiocracy, even. -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I ♥ "baronial". Commence walkies. (I go back and forth between having the BibTeX bibliography entries live in Module Space and translating them as they're rendered, or doing the translation once on my laptop and cut 'n' pasting the results. Having a lua lexer/parser in mediawiki means that lots of other people can start using BibTeX in articles.  Writing the damn thing in python on my laptop means that I can start using it much, much sooner.  But since there's this new shiny toy over here, I'll put off that decision a little longer.)  Side note:  tomorrow is going to be mostly grant-writing and powerpoint-barfing, Monday is travel, and Tuesday is presenting + looting Powell's bookstore in Portland. Walkies may be delayed until Wednesday evening. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Big rush now, but just two notes: Gardin has so many books out, he has a book out devoted to his books. (More details on this a bit later.) This cannot be said for many photographers. (Araki has two devoted to his books.) &para; A photobook by Gardin will very shortly be on its way to me. -- Hoary (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm at UOregon and have pretty much struck out&mdash;only five books in the stacks. What's the bibliographical book that you found? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The GBG photobook-book is:
 * Bruno Carbone, ed. Gianni Berengo Gardin. Il libro dei libri. Rome: Contrasto DUE, 2013. ISBN 9788869654442.
 * Incidentally, the it:WP article about GBG, in common with other Italian-language sources I've seen, refers to him not as "Gardin" but as "Berengo Gardin".
 * Percentagewise, your library is infinitely better than mine (whose OPAC shows zero hits). I peeked into your OPAC:
 * Le isole della laguna di Venezia: guida alla città di Venezia / Gianni Berengo-Gardin; Venezia Italy: Edizioni L'Altra Riva; ©1988
 * Viaggio in Toscana
 * Gianni Berengo-Gardin; Giorgio Soavi 1923-; Venezia, Alfieri Edizione d'Arte; 1967
 * Giorgio Soavi 1923-; Gianni Berengo-Gardin illustrator; Firenze, Marchi e Bertolli; 1967
 * Pierluca. / Giuseppe Marchiori; Venezia, Alfieri; 1967
 * Il Campo: il senso di una piazza / Mauro Civai; Giovanni Santi; Siena: Protagon editori toscani; c2003
 * Leopardi: la biblioteca, la casa, l'infinito: fotografie di Gianni Berengo Gardin / Gianni Berengo-Gardin; Maria Perosino; Verucchio Rimini: P.G. Pazzini; 2006
 * Castelli e fortificazioni / Aurelio Natali; Gianni Berengo-Gardin illustrator; Milano: Touring club italiano; 1974
 * (Some may not be on the stacks, of course.) I wonder why Pierluca pops up. (A mere glitch?) And two Italian publishers of Viaggio in Toscana in the same one year? Intriguing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Il libro dei libri is $50 on Amazon. I'll check Powell's in Portland tomorrow and if they don't have it I'll go ahead and order it. (Worldcat shows a copy at Stanford, but that's a ways away from my stomping grounds. Nice catch, btw!  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, please don't (unless the copy at Powell's is remaindered or of course if it actually appeals to you as non-editor). I expect to have access to a copy myself within a few weeks. The book that's definitely on its way to me is this one, or rather the English-language version thereof (whose external design seems very similar). &para; GBG has an odd kind of fame in the anglosphere, it seems. In a few books he receives very high praise (which seem to be justified by what I've seen in little JPEGs); but in others he doesn't appear at all. No mention of him in the index of Michel Frizot, ed, A New History of Photography (Cologne: Könemann, 1998) (a huge and excellent book), for example. -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC) .... PS he's "Gardin, Gianni Berengo" in the Oxford Companion to the Photograph; and some person called "Gianni Berengo" gets a single passing mention in the third edition (!) of Naomi Rosenblum's famed A World History of Photography. -- Hoary (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Note to self: probably a good idea to make a record of books consulted that were not useful as well as the ones that were. Should be at Powell's in a few hours, and now I'll be browsing their references works as well as GBG's own. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll start to build such a list at the foot of the embryonic article. But in the meantime: I haven't consulted any book about Italian photography in general, and don't think I have access to a copy of any such book (unless I decide to buy it, of course). If you see such a book, you might take a look within. I don't think you'll find much within any history or encyclopedia of photography in general. (The reason I looked at a number of such books was that they were anyway close at hand.) &para; This edit was a sorry loss, I think. -- Hoary (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Struck out on the Portland trip. One page in one book in Powell's, and the book had no copyright page and worldcat doesn't know about it. Nothing in the city library or the Portland Museum library. Deeply strange.... In other news, I prefer using the cite book template; if this makes you break out in a rash, we can talk. There's also several competing efforts around the idea of regularizing identification, and I think the French National library had collected the several ways GBG was identified in these several systems. I know nothing at all about how enWP deals with this, but once I track down the link again I'll copy the data over and we can discuss. And now, sadly, back to grant writing.... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm fully in favor of the notion of "Cite" templates as aids toward later reformatting and a semantic web, but I greatly dislike them in practice: (i) Their current implementation inverts the order of western names, for no purpose than I can think of (other perhaps than to look mildly rebarbative). I mean, fine, "Marx, Karl" in an alphabetically ordered list; but why in a list that is not alphabetically ordered? (ii) It's hard or impossible to add complications within them (e.g. inserting "Illm" templates, or alternative scripts), (iii) they're so damn bulky that editing around them is a pain. However, I'm pretty much accustomed to them, and when for example I augment an article written by my learned friend Lopifalko that has them, I add "Cite" templates of my own (while gnashing my teeth). &para; Well, I'm deeply disappointed in Portland, one of a number of US cities I enjoy reading about (latest installment). -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to report that illm now works to at least a limited degree:

For the moment I'm going to use them in the bibliography, with the understanding that they're a tool and not a religious commitment. Feel free to continue to add entries in non-template formats. (That illm thing is pretty cool. So is authority control, which is another new discovery this evening.  Good times.)  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This draft is chugging along fairly well. What say we aim to launch it when it reaches 100 kB? -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the difference between a slur and a phrase mark?
Well, I think this is a slur -- you said: "Japanese units of mass/weight [these would have been used by people unaware of the distinction between the two concepts]". No, I don't think you have any evidence that Basil Hall Chamberlain for one, me for another, and lots of other sensible people do not understand the difference between mass and weight. I got an A (I hope I remember correctly) in A-level applied maths, which involves doing all sorts of calculations with the weight of an object as a force acting on it, and with the mass of the object making the F=ma equation work to give you the right answer. But when making a cake, I check the weight of the ingredients. For ordinary purposes, unless you are going to the moon, weight and mass are interchangeable, and it is customary to talk of "Weights and measures". There seems to be a recent trend towards believing that if children are taught to say 'mass' instead of 'weight' this will somehow make the world better. I don't believe it. (Interestingly, most modern weighing devices do indeed measure weight, not mass, don't they?) Sorry, this is an irrelevance really, the important thing is, um, the, um, I've quite forgotten where I was, and I am still not sure if there is any difference between a slur and a phrase mark. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, I too got an A (I hope ditto) in A-level applied maths. Back in the Showa period. To elaborate -- just in case this page is being observed by some Very Solemn Persons -- I mean no disrespect to Japanese people past or present, or to any metrologist ditto, or to scientists ditto. Of course Cardarelli knows the distinction very well, and Meiji-period Japanese scientists did ... but I rather doubt that people using the term 匁 did. (Though yes, scientists who knew the distinction very well and observed it during their work might have ignored it when sitting with a carpenter using 匁 to discuss construction work for family purposes.) The names in the Chinese article 質量對重量 suggest that the Japanese took these terms from China -- no it doesn't; that was a joke: but it would be handy, would it not, if there were something like the OED for Japanese, so that one could quickly see roughly when various usages started (and also, though irrelevantly here, etymologies created by skilled lexicographers rather than by well-meaning recyclers of myth and "common sense". -- Hoary (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The statmho
I also got an 'A' in physics, but these various schemes for cgs units just make my head spin. Could you be a dearie, and look in your Cardarelli for what he says, exactly, about statmho. I think this might be a verifiable bit of "bogus precision", which would be useful. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Statmho. Cardarelli also provides an entry for each of "symbol", "physical quantity", "dimension", "notes, definitions, other conversion factors" (which for this includes no other conversion factor), and "system", but I don't bother to reproduce these. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Time for a move
If it's just me working on an article, keeping the talk page for source material and the article page for drafts might work, but I think that's proving unworkable for collaboration. I've moved the article to Draft:Gianni Berengo Gardin, which will give us a talk page. See you there! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You are just running rings around me....
I may be reduced to cheerleading at the GBG article.

Ummm....

Go! Go! Go!

(Nice work. Really.)

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Give me three more days in the week, and I could get this done a lot quicker. But unfortunately I'll have to go slow, as I'm behind in the (entirely unrelated) work for which I'm paid a salary. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No hope of returning anytime soon, but my boss as agreed to let me cut my travel by 2/3rds and so I'm holding out hope that I'll be back eventually. (You know you're traveling too much when free trips to India and Germany seem like chores to be endured.)  I did want to tell you, though, that the GBG article is looking damn amazing.  You're doing a great job, and you're setting the bar for future bibliographies much higher than I had ever hoped to see.  Keep up the great work, and leave a few punctuation errors for me to clean up, ok?  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Dunno about business travel. I love to travel on my terms, but my employers' terms are so utterly different that I'd rather stay where I am even if my time here is spent on the most boring of chores. So even though the opportunities are rare, I try to avoid eye-contact when they do come up. Perhaps your free trips are similar. &para; Unfortunately the rings that I'm running, whether or not around you, are being run ever more slowly, as my own salaried, staying-where-I-am chores mount up. Still, I'm determined to continue running. Another month or two, and this one part of the article should be pretty well complete. (Whereupon there'll only be the rest of the article.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Reply
I found that article to comply with Wikipedia policy so I bypassed the salt. Lets make it clear that I am within my rights to do what I'm doing. You are not the sole administrator that decides who is worthy of contribution. I hope that you will realize that Wikipedia continued success depends on independent editors such as my self. AFC is NOT a admin only task, you may put policy around your script, but not around the task itself. If you have a issue with that I suggest you seek the creation of a new usergroup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynctekrua (talk • contribs) 08:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

AAVE
I wasn't sure I entirely believed him anyway. By the way, I was going to duplicate the footnote found at ebonics (word) into the AAVE lede that states "For linguists' reasons for this avoidance, see for example Green (2000:7–8)." Is that a typo on the date or are we missing a reference? — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 05:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't either. &para; Good question: your suspicions are correct. I've fixed the mistake. Incidentally, that article includes this description: "and thus merely an alternative term for AAVE". This now strikes me as unnecessarily vague, and possibly misleading. What I think is meant, and what I'd prefer to say, is "and thus shares its referent with AAVE". (I mean, "North Korea" and the "DPRK" share the same referent, but only in certain senses of "meaning" can they be said to have the same "meaning": the former hints at renunciation of any claim to the southern half; the latter makes some sort of claim for democracy and of-the-people-ness.) However, referent isn't an everyday word, and perhaps I'm being too pernickety. I'd guess that if I wrote "refers to the same thing as does AAVE" (easier to understand), somebody would consider it wordy and "fix" it. Thoughts? -- Hoary (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think "refers to the same thing as (does) AAVE" would accomplish that parsing without sounding too strange to lay readers. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ikeda
Two questions, please, re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisaku_Ikeda

Hi Hoary,

Thank you very much for all your help.

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisaku_Ikeda

1) I had made this edit:

According to, Toda admitted to hitting the priest "once or twice"'; this accusation is disputed and there is no record of any charges filed against Toda. Ikeda later referred to the incident as an "act of kindness" because "the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka Gakkai and died a happy man."

Shortly thereafter, catflap08 reverted this to its previous text, Ikeda, who admitted to hitting the priest "once or twice" later referred to the incident as an "act of kindness" because "the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka Gakkai and died a happy man."

a) Text of Murata reads, "Toda [not Ikeda] admitted hitting the priest 'twice' [p. 96] ..." That is, my edit accurately reflected the text of Murata. Hence the my history comment "Update Ogasawara section to match Murata pp. 96-97"

b) Indisputably, this accusation is disputed, as seen on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda

c) Is this a better edit for this section (given that Murata names Toda, not Ikeda, in the text)?

According to, Toda admitted to hitting the priest "once or twice"'; this accusation is disputed and there does not seem to be a record of any charges filed against Toda. Ikeda later referred to the incident as an "act of kindness" because "the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka Gakkai and died a happy man."

[that is, this edit uses the neutral language "there does not seem to be a record of any charges" rather than "there is no record"]

2) I had inserted a fairly lengthy quotation from Rosa Parks, "American Civil Rights pioneer Rosa Parks chose as her favorite photo one of her meeting with Ikeda in 1993. She explained that “This photograph is about the future and I can’t think of a more important moment in my life. ..."

Catflap08 removed the entire quotation, referencing "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery"

Does that stylistic guideline mean that none of the published quotation from Mrs. Parks in Kismaric, Carole and Heiferman, Marvin. "Talking Pictures: People Speak about the Photographs that Speak to Them." San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1994. ISBN 0-08118-0382-1) is usable in the article?

Thank you very much for your guidance on these questions.

Starrynuit (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

2015.02.05

Greetings again,

Thank you very much for your followup on my questions.

I do hope all goes very well.

Please help me understand the best way to proceed with the repeated misquoting of Murata

As indicated in my previous communication, text of Murata reads, "Toda admitted hitting the priest 'twice' [p. 96] ..."

Today, catflap08 added a reference to the article: Google Books (http://books.google.ca/books?id=x8QKAAAAYAAJ) http://books.google.ca/books?id=x8QKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA96&img=1&pgis=1&dq=admitted+hitting&sig=ACfU3U3GLP8B07Kd_i38YEDfKjxJ61cWzw&edge=0

That Google Books link indeed reads "Toda admitted hitting the priest 'twice' ..."

Montgomery states  "What happens [after Toda encountered Ogasawara] is not clear. According to Ikeda, Toda reasoned calmly with Ogasawara, demanding an apology, while the old man 'drooled at the mouth' and 'howled like a rabid dog.' But Murata claims that Toda told him in an interview that he struck the priest 'twice' ([Murata, p.] 96)."

Why then does the article itself read '"Ikeda, who admitted to hitting the priest "once or twice"' while referencing this same page from Murata, which clearly has "Toda" rather than "Ikeda"?

By the way, Ikeda, in The Human Revolution, vol. 6,  from which much of Montgomery's account of this incident seems to be derived, states that Ogasawara himself kicked Toda twice.

Why does the article itself read "Ikeda and Toda headed a group of 4,000 men" when Murata (p. 96) and Montgomery (p. 186) both state that Toda headed the group. Murata p. 96 states that Toda led the group and then says on p. 97 that Ikeda led the group; that is, Murata seems to contradict himself on this point.

Thank you so much for your guidance on these questions.

Starrynuit (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Ikeda, in The Human Revolution,  vol. 6, pages 710-711, writes that Toda never struck Ogasawara; in fact, Toda said "Stop! Don't hurt him. This vile fellow is not worth beating. Leave him alone." after Ogasawara kicked Toda the first time. After Ogasawara kicked him the second time, Toda left the room and then warned the youth division leader Seki, '"Don't harm Kasahara [Ogasawara.], Seki."'

Thank you very much again.

Starrynuit (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've fiddled with the article a little, and put up a question on its talk page. I'm watching it and will notice any response. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your conscientious efforts. Best wishes,

Starrynuit (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!  .... added at 15:37, 6 February 2015‎ by Catflap08 

Invitation to Participate in a WikiProject Study
Hello Hoary,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

205.175.97.53 (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

topic ban
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Relax, it´s humbug and a WP:Boomerang. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, JimRenge. "Humbug" is a much underused word: bullshit is crude (and overextended) in comparison. (A boomerang made of humbug, hmm.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

As requested


The de-sysopping, topic banning and relegation to the seventh circle of hell will have to be done by someone else unfortunatley as i left the keys to those doors at work. Amortias (T)(C) 01:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy! -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to keep an eye out for The Spanish Inquisiton as your unlikely to expect it. Amortias (T)(C) 01:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Раціональне анархіст
I have checked that he had misrepresented one of your comment before as WP:NPA. Now I am currently having a problem with him, he continues to WP:REFACTOR my comments from his talk page after misrepresenting them as WP:NPA.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The band is getting back together!
Nothing reunites Wiki editors quite like the raging COI of a single-purpose editor's article being AfD'd. :D    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 15:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Catflap08
Hi! I have recently (read: over the past 9 months) been having a problem with this user, and recently I requested he get TBANned from the Kenji Miyazawa article. This was opposed by User:John Carter who seemed convinced that I was involved in some stalled DRN discussion with Catflap and was forum-shopping by bringing the dispute to ANI. Ironic since one of my complaints about Catflap was that he was forum-shopping. I have just now been doing a bit of digging (didn't have to go far: edits to the ANI archives are almost always problematic) and found out that actually forum-shopping of that exact kind had been done, and you were the target of it.

I'm curious if you have any hints on how to put up with this guy? He's stopped editing Wikipedia over the last two days, but I'm certain he'll be back (my current dispute with him started when he came back after six months to violate a by-then old consensus, after having already done the same previously). It's pretty bloody frustrating. The guy clearly knows nothing whatsoever about the subject except that he is (peripherally?) aware of his religious views, and it's becoming a pain dealing with him.

Any advice?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, Catflap08, yes, I remember the name. He does seem to get very worked up, and yes, this edit to an AN/I archive brought a chuckle. I don't attempt to deal with him. Sometimes I attempt to deal with his edits. If I were to bring these up at WP:AN/I, I'd write a draft, print it out, edit it with a red pen for concision and clarity, and only then post it. (And of course I'd avoid any boldface whatever. Use of boldface seems to say "My rational arguments, if any, aren't strong enough. So I have to shout.") -- Hoary (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, toward the end that was a serious problem. Initially I was just trying to make the important parts stand out. Explaining how a content dispute isn't a content dispute because the content dispute was actually resolved months ago and the actual problem is that a user is being thick-headed is ... well, I'm not good at it. If anything else happens I'll do a better job next time, anyway. Thanks! Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea right lol --Catflap08 (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Catflap08: Funny how you posted a link to closed ANI discussion (note: it only got closed because I asked for it, and you only came back to editing because it was closed, so ... you're welcome for that) that almost immediately suffered link rot. Also: "lol"? You don't know the difference between "misrepresentation" and "misinterpretation" and you "lol" at me? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to continue this (or any other) discussion between the two of you, please do so elsewhere, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Bernard Cheong pictures/photo
Hi Horay,

uploading pictures, seem too much selection, am worry my friend Bernard Cheong pictures/photo is been downloaded and misuse can you at least guide me how to do it or what to write when uploading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zane Loke (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see this on your talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sir Claude
Thanks for the moustache. I guess it could've been worse. -- BenRG (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sir! They are utterly unlike. Sir Claude's moustache shows a man of both action and culture. Oh, and wax. Panayot Hitov's facial growth is an assault on the senses. -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You are strange
Removing cited work to support your own POV is vandalism. And why are you trolling me? Or are you a sockpuppet of Yopie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.249.253 (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I am strange? I am "trolling" you? Please explain, in detail, with diffs. (Although concision is a virtue.) If there's something serious, better make this detailed (though concise!) account at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Am I a sockpuppet of Yopie? Bit of a silly question, really; because if I'm not I'll say I'm not, while if I am I'll say I'm not. So if you have reason to believe that I am, you'd better go to sockpuppet investigations. Meanwhile, I'm most interested in your edits. Are you going to reply to this? -- Hoary (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are strange, but that's why we like you, Hoary. ··· 日本穣 ? ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Awww. . . . [blush]. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

New Yopie stalker
I noticed you had blocked an IP that was stalking Yopie, I believe I have stumbled upon another one. I will let you take it from here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ian Davies (photographer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Face. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Singh
The behavioural signs - running round issuing warnings, blanking them on their own page, malformed appeals to EW, language style etc - are that the new-ish contributor to the Singh fashion designer article is another sock of the original promoter, whose name is scattered all over the talk page. However, that is three years ago and so I'm not bothering with SPI. I'll just deal with it as if they are indeed new here. Thanks for stepping in. - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, erm, let's attend to what's impotent. -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I shall prostate myself in front of the admins at AN3 or wherever I am taken next. - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the help with IP stalker/troll. I really don't know, what to do with him, because he is not communicating, explaining etc.--Yopie (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Dipjyoti Borah
Hello. May I as ask your clarification and guidance for the future articles like this. You've removed the speedy deletion tag, while it's clearly visible that the person is not significant at all, without any notable sources. As your wrote by yourself - "yes another blogger". So, why not speedy remove and how should I act in the future, when I see article like this. Thank you in advance Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fairly clear to you and to me that this person is not of great significance. But Criteria for speedy deletion says that although speedy deletion should be the fate of "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant", "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". It's quite imaginable that this person has set up the website; this would be a claim of significance. -- Hoary (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, though I am still lost here, probably for good :( Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Container categories
I know it's a few years ago, but I'm wondering what your reason was for changing Category:History of photography to a container category. Why should that category not have articles directly in it? DexDor(talk) 06:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Good question, and I almost responded with a simple "I haven't a clue". But here is the template that I was adding. It then read:


 * Due to the scope of this category, it should contain only subcategories and possibly a limited number of directly related pages.


 * There's a non-trivial jump from that to today's:


 * This is a container category. It should contain only subcategories.


 * The history of photography rightly includes the contemporary history of photography. And now that I rack my tired brains, I dimly remember that what was happening was that people were adding "" to biographical articles on Photographers Of Significance To The History Of Photography. Such as, ahem, people who were rather obviously their mates, their employers or themselves. And so I would have wanted a template to make editors (well, thinking editors) think thrice before slapping this category onto anything and everything about photography. -- Hoary (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that info. There's a related discussion here. DexDor(talk) 17:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=668383181 your edit] to Basil Hall Chamberlain may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * his quondam friends &amp;mdash; all of whom he gradually dropped, with but few exceptions...}} quoted from Chamberlain's letters. Chamberlain wrote to Hearn's biographer to explain that Hearn
 * is Still Alive: Thoughts and Reflections.'' Translated by Joseph Cronin; self-published via Lulu, 2015.

And 11 years later . ..
I thought you would be interested to know that Mike Heath (swimmer), an article you created as a stub in 2004, was promoted to Good Article today. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up, and congratulations on all your good work there. I'm embarrassed to notice that ("in more innocent times" = back when we were lazier or anyway I was lazier) I "created" this stub with no source whatever. (For that matter, "stub" is a generous description; "stublet" would be better.) I vaguely remember that Michael Heath was then about somebody I'd never heard of, whereas I'd been there in search of a British cartoonist of the same name. And therefore a decade ago I created the latter article (here's how I left it) and did some desultory disambiguating. Amazingly little has changed to the article on the cartoonist during the last decade. More amazingly, it doesn't seem ever to have attracted a template saying that it's devoid of sources (for a living person, what's more). It does have the bland statement "A biography for him can be seen at the British Cartoon Archive, University of Kent's website http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/artists/michaelheath/biography", which seems to say "we Wikipedia editors could have used what's at this link to source some of the content, but we couldn't be bothered". One of these decades, I ought to improve that article.... -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hoary, those were different days on Wikipedia. I've been an editor-writer since mid-2009, and in my time and areas of interest, it's been mostly infill and upgrade.  Glad I could make you feel a little nostalgia for 2004.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

thoughts re Comprised of
More questions/ideas/suggestions!

I don't have access to the contents of S Pinker's book "The Sense of Style" so must ask: do you know whether Pinker actually wrote that "comprised of" is among (what he calls) "fuss-budget decrees" or does he only use the 50 states thing to indirectly point to "comprised of"? What I'm getting at is, can we simplify that sentence "...lists purists' avoidance of comprised of among "a few fuss-budget decrees..."? I just find that clause with the 50 states thing (perhaps unnecessarily?) complicates things.

Under "Evaluation", I'm wondering whether you'd be happy with the 9th paragraph being edited as follows and, with the list that follows now preceding it, moved to "Use":

[list of Trollope, Mailer, etc quotes, followed by]

In a 2011 survey, only 32 percent of the writers and editors on the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary found “comprised of” unacceptable.[35]

Another thing I'm wondering is, should we maybe restructure the article a little so that the "Uses" section is the "arguments for" section, and then maybe a "Deprecations" ("arguments against") subsection? One problem I have with "Evaluation" is that it comes across as a bit of a personal/subjective evaluation. That is, the article as it now stands (to me, anyway) has a pretty strong "in defense of comprised of " tone about it and I think it would come across as more balanced if we didn't have a kind of 'sitting in judgement' ("Evaluation") subsection. (I have also just done some editing to try to address the overall tone by replacing the terms "purists" and "warpath", and possibly others that escape me at the moment, with less loaded ones.)

I'd be interested to know what you think of my Pullum additions. I realize that the one in the Pinker paragraph kind of throws the flow of that section off a bit but without larger-scale restructuring I'm not sure how to fix that. -- Ty rS  12:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * TyrS, suddenly I'm sleepy (for "comprised"-irrelevant reasons) and have a (rare) attack of the hiccups, so I'll leave your questions elsewhere unanswered for now. (I will return to them later.) As for what you write above:


 * I don't have immediate access to Pinker's book but I can and will look at it within a week from now.


 * I'm not happy with the "evaluation" section even as it is now. It contains a list of uses by writers of note. These are interesting and I think worth inclusion -- somewhere. But they don't directly evaluate the construction (although of course they do so by implication). Something should be changed here, perhaps just the title of the section. (Any ideas for this?) Your proposed addition is very good.


 * But instances of use aren't (directly) arguments for use. They're just (more or less interesting) data. (I think they're interesting; others may disagree.) Still, if one could combine them with a sourced claim by a linguist that widespread use of a construction by first-language speakers of repute implied that the construction was a good part of the language, then the result would be an argument for use.


 * "Convinced of" is part of English. Some people use it; some people (I'd guess) find it no more than a slightly pompous alternative to "sure of" or "certain of", and use one of the latter. It hardly generates argument, let alone newspaper articles. Rightly, it has no article in WP. For better or worse, "Comprised of" is different: Some people don't like it, others greet this dislike with puzzlement. I'm convinced that (if this article is to exist) it should have a section on evaluation. (I don't claim either that the content of the current section can't be improved or that the title can't be bettered.)


 * Sorry, I'm nodding off at the keyboard (entirely my fault, not yours). -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello again, TyrS. Here's what Pinker writes:
 * With the backing of data from the AHF Usage Panel, historical analyses from several dictionaries, and a pinch of my own judgment, I will review a few fuss-budget decrees you can safely ignore before turning to living distinctions you'd be wise to respect.
 * There follow 25 items in a table. Comprise is one of these. (If Pinker notices that he conflates verb with noun, he doesn't mention this.) Of comprise, he says:
 * Only Sense Allowed by Purists: contain (The US comprises 50 states.)
 * Sense Commonly Used: compose, make up (The US is comprised of 50 states.)
 * Comment: The "compose" sense is often used and increasingly accepted, particularly in the passive.
 * This is all on p263 of the Viking paperback edition that's already cited in the article, and it's all that he writes about the word. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As I haven't seen you...
...near articles for Indian academic institutions of late, I thought you'd be interested in all the departments that use File:Gautam Buddha University logo.jpg to bring out that masochistic side of you. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you: I've brought up the matter here. -- Hoary (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carolyn Drake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Gill. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transphotographiques, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Klein. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

David Godman
Any thoughts on David Godman and my comment at the related talk page? The guy seems to be a hagiographer for the sect and I'm toying with sending it to AfD. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I learn that Over the next four years Godman did extensive research on Papaji's life and the result was Nothing Ever Happened, a three volume 1,200-page biography. Is Peter Cook posthumously editing Wikipedia? &para; I can't see signs of notability, but then I have trouble noticing them in most articles about mystical matters. -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Rajkumar Kanagasingam
Some time ago you participated at Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam. As the article has recently been recreated, and nominated again for deletion, you are invited to participate in the new discussion at Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam (2nd nomination). —Psychonaut (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Check your inbox
Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Problem IP
Advice/help needed: I just undid the remaining edits by 181.143.225.98 over the space of 2-3 months, all but one obvious vandalism. Can this be blocked? Imaginatorium (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Duax
The article that is the subject of this AfD (Articles for deletion/Robert Duax) has been enhanced substantially since you weighed in. If you have a moment to take a second look at Robert Duax, that would be appreciated. Cbl62 (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Gary Stretch article
Hello I read your article on Gary Stretch and was surprised when it said that he knocked Eubank down twice and that the stoppage in rd 6 was controversial. I then watched the fight on Youtube. Eubank wasn't knocked down at all. He did slip twice in rd 2 and in rd 3 but both were clear slips and not called as knock downs. Also the stoppage was not controversial as Stretch was knocked down twice (once through the ropes) and was in bad shape when the ref stopped it. I don't think the existing description of the fight is accurate. ..... added at 14:47, 25 January by User:2016‎ 196.215.80.244


 * Thank you for writing; I'm about to reply at Talk:Gary Stretch. -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Draft:Gianni Berengo Gardin page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=704728908 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F704728908%7CDraft:Gianni Berengo Gardin%5D%5D Ask for help])

Talk for WP:MED task forces
I noticed your posts on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force‎. While I'm not familiar enough with these topics to be of any help, I wanted to mention that the talk pages for WikiProject Medicine's task forces don't get much traffic. You may be more likely to get a response if you cross-post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine or post a short note there linking to your posts on the task force talk page. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame credit › 15:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice, which I'll follow. -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Oh, thank you. (But more particularly for your own otherwise thankless efforts there). And PDFTT. -- Hoary (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference desk protection
Hoary, hi there. I see you've put WP:RD/M on indefinite semi-protection following one of the usual attacks by Soft Skin. If you take a look at the talk page at WT:RD, you'll see the level of controversy that this generates. Consensus in the RFC seems to be heading towards a 48-hour maximum period for semi-protection, and it might be an idea to reduce the length of protection on RD/M accordingly. Tevildo (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, you're right; and just now I removed the sprotection (which I realize is not quite what you were recommending). I'm prepared to reinstate it though. -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmakris (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

[citation needed]
hi I am Vassilis Makris

I try to help you on [citation needed] in this topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassilis_Makris

He has been a member of... http://etekt.gr/ειδικοτητα/φωτογράφος-σκηνής/ http://www.foebus.gr/showuser.asp?userid=518

In June 2015 he participated in the 4-day "Light Up the Night" event... http://www.snf.org/en/newsroom/news/2015/06/incarnation-photography-exhibition-by-vassilis-makris/

In May 2016 he mounted the "Damni i colori...The making of" exhibition http://www.snfcc.org/visitors-center/events/2016/05/events201605dammi-i-colori…the-making-of31-05-2016/

From 2005 to 2010, he taught various courses on the principles of architectural and industrial photography at the Leica Academy... http://www.leica-academy.gr/index.php/en Contact person: mrs. Konstantina Margalia - e-mail : info@leica-academy.gr

Between 2010 and 2012, he was a member of the editorial team... ask here: http://www.protagon.gr http://www.protagon.gr/poioi-eimaste

thank you in advance Vmakris


 * Thank you, User:Vmakris or Vassilis Makris.


 * Please read Autobiography.


 * I'll summarize this for you: Do not attempt to create, augment, or improve an article about yourself.


 * It does also say:


 * Contributing material or making suggestions on the article's talk page is considered proper&mdash;let independent editors write it into the article itself or approve it if you still want to make the changes yourself. It may help attract attention to your talk page request to include the request edit template as part of the request.


 * So please stop editing the article Vassilis Makris, and instead make any further suggestions within Talk:Vassilis Makris. -- Hoary (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sock?
You might want to check this thread --Epipelagic (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Equally and very similarly tiresome, that's for sure. Thank you for alerting me to this. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Who R U?. -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Rosalind Solomon
See this edit where I converted the 'Retitling?' thread into a formal move discussion. Hope this is agreeable to you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, EdJohnston. Yes, good idea. I've added a bit of explanation over there; hope you don't mind that. -- Hoary (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, I signed my name after some of your text. I hope it is fixed now. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to have duplicated some of my text and signed after that, Ed. The result looked a bit odd (not that I minded at all). I fear that my explanation over there is heavy-handed and just amplifies the confusion. Oh well. &para; I'm not surprised that the photographer has decided to bring back her original surname, putting it in front of the surname of a man she married and divorced (or was divorced from, I don't know) a long time ago. But as an editor, I find it a little irritating. However the article is titled, its content shouldn't be anachronistic; and attempting to prevent this is likely to result in charges of either anachronism or tiresome hairsplitting. Oh well, at least nobody is worked up over the matter; it's not like "Gdansk" versus "Danzig" or similar. You are of course very welcome to add your own view there on this Earth-unshattering question..... Hoary (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You probably know that you can easily move the article yourself. The only reason to want a discussion is that you weren't sure, so now you can get more opinions. I looked her up in worldcat.org, where she is Rosalind Solomon. So I don't see a strong reason to include the 'Fox'. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can move it myself. (And having moderate superpowers as I do, I could even move it over a redirect -- not that there is one.) Problem was/is, I genuinely don't know which is better. As for worldcat.org, for example does indeed treat the advertised author Rosalind Fox Solomon as Rosalind Solomon, but I don't understand its criteria for doing so. A tempting analogy: we treat James Morris as "Jan Morris"; but this is a no-brainer as the change of name (and identity) occurred early in her career, and the earlier books were subsequently reissued under her new name. However, the Morris article is a lot less detailed than the Solomon one is. Yes, I agree, I see no strong reason to include the "Fox" ... but I don't see one for not including it either. &para; Aha, brainwave: I shall ping my learned friend (and experienced librarian) DGG! -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no actual solution to this or related naming questions . The title of an article is an identifier, not a judgement.  As long as the first sentence give the other form, and theres an redirect, readers will be equally well served. Since our system makes us pick a single one, my own bias is that  since LC and the majority of other national libraries use Rosalind Solomon  VIAF,  so should we.  Myself, I never change whatever I see in the article, and if anyone does change it, I never change it back or challenge it. For a new article, I follow LC. (this rule is getting increasingly tricky, since when LC isn't sure, it nowadays tends to follow Wikipedia.)  DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rosalind Solomon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Museo Tamayo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

How to comment on a draft...
More advice needed, Hoary, old chap. (Is that second comman necessary? No, that's not the question.)

Watched "The Big Short" yesterday, then I ended up watching an Ian Hislop documentary on conscientious objectors. Makes you think.

Anyway, I am a bit embroiled in an article on a supposed "technique" called (by me) 3HX, at three-hand effect. Any old crap can be included, as long as it is (for example) a DMus "thesis", consisting of a list of the harmonies in a collection of boring studies, with a few trite comments. But meanwhile, I chanced on Draft:Auguste Lechner -- someone I had never heard of, of course. But this is a little biography, with some references (all in German), of an Austrian author of children's books. It is extremely easy to verify that she did indeed write lots of children's books, perhaps more culturally beneficial than Enid Blyton, since they're based on the classic Abenteuer-stuff (sorry, don't know the plural, and my German is pretty fragmentary). This article has of course been rejected for lack of "Notability"; this seems absurd to me, but I am not quite sure what is needed, and I don't even know procedurally how one can argue for accepting it. What can I do? Imaginatorium (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sauce, Imaginatorium, sauce. Throw in more sauce! Quote: "With estimated total sales of over a million,...." Oh yeah? Who says this? And where? The draft also isn't helped by giving English titles to German-language books. Do a bit of work on it -- surely you can find something, even if your German is no better than mine -- and then you can more credibly post an appeal for help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Children's literature or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Living Man Declared Dead and Other Chapters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Cascade
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. Tony  (talk)  04:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Food and Drink editathon
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Dimitrios Maximos
I've gone to a steward's talk page to ask about Swineposit's situation: instead of requesting a global lock, which might well be declined, I pointed to your WP:AN and WD:AN comments and asked basically "In this situation, would a lock request have a chance, or would it be shot down immediately?" My only concern is Swineposit's non-activity globally since the 15th of November; this is more disruptive than the only user for whom I've request a global lock on the grounds of general disruption to a lot of Wikipedias (several years ago, before Wikidata's creation, I discovered a user who was long-term messing with interwiki links on lots and lots of articles), so I don't think there would be opposition on the grounds that this isn't disruptive enough. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Motbag12
Just letting you know he's editing still. . Doug Weller talk 22:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked a couple of the IPs. He's still insulting editors. Doug Weller  talk 08:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, you're right. Thank you for the heads up. -- Hoary (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Kmoksy and A Taste of Thyme
I tried to given an answer to your request at WP:ANI. I don't know if you saw it, since another editor hid it. --Lambiam 17:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, I did see it. It's helpful. The reason given for hiding it is valid, but the hiding still seems capricious. Why hide your response to my question and not my question as well? I could make a fuss about this, but there are only 24 hours in the day, so I let it pass. For the next three days I'll be pretty busy, but perhaps thereafter I'll post something on the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, My English not so well, but I will try to say. here I think something isn't right. --TonJ (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for alerting me. It's not something I'm competent to deal with, so I've brought it up at Village_pump_(technical). -- Hoary (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you!!--TonJ (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It turns out that there was/is no problem, but thank you for your vigilance all the same. -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

07:02:59, 23 February 2017 review of submission by Ducati-2007
Thanks for your inputs, will get back with more updates and reliable references

Dear Hoary please give your feedback on the actual page. Bearing in mind we shall provide a few official critics later in a month or two. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducati-2007 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I provided feedback on 23 February. I see no evidence that you have acted on it.


 * I'll save you some time. Are there independent, reliable sources about this book? (For example, has it received reviews in newspapers?) If so, then provide references to these. If not, then the book does not merit an article in Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok Hoary :) Thanks for your feedback, will keep editing and updating it and soon will get reviews but promise: you will hear enough about it independently :)

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducati-2007 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kikai-india.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Kikai-india.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kikai-meiro.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Kikai-meiro.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kikai-outati.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Kikai-outati.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Rock Revolt Magazine

 * Draft talk:Rock Revolt Magazine
 * Draft:Rock Revolt Magazine

This article was not part of AFC, so should not have been deleted as an AFC draft. Please restore the draft. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oops. On G13, I now see: This applies to rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months (excluding bot edits). This criterion applies to draft articles in the draft namespace or userspace that are using the project's template. That's only a minority of the musty drafts I've deleted over the last two or three days. I suppose I'll have to revisit them. However, that is going to have to wait 15 hours or so. -- Hoary (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I started on the job. But now I'm falling asleep, so the rest is going to have to wait some hours. -- Hoary (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Admin has brainfart; carnage ensues. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for alerting me to this, Shirt58. -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for help
Hoary, I see that that you and I have crossed paths - in a nice way - in the past. I am trying to resolve a dispute regarding the Ellis Paul article and am hoping you will lend support on the Talk:Ellis Paul page by offering a Third Party Opinion. In a nutshell, another editor removed a sound sample box that has been part of the article for 10 years. I would like to have a consensus to be able to add the sound sample back. I would appreciate your support. Thank you for your time and consideration.Kmzundel (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello
I'm Michael Recanati son that article is mostly made up and and rest half truth there is much personal information about living people that Is private. I want help in a complete rewrite Flamingoflorida (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but please make any request at Talk:Michael Recanati. -- Hoary (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Probal Rashid: notable or not?
I would like your advice about a photojournalist bio, Probal Rashid, that has been on my radar for a while as needing either improvement or deletion. I've been impressed with your insights on other photographer bios, so would appreciate any guidance you have time to give.

It cites one feature article about him in an independent reliable source, which is a good start, but not normally enough to pass WP:GNG. My searches found one other reliable source with significant coverage, although in the form of an interview, so not independent to the extent that it's him talking about him.

His work has been widely published, but that's the job of a photojournalist. I'm not sure whether there's a point at which that becomes evidence that he's regarded as an important figure or his work has become a significant monument. I couldn't find any books of/on his work. He has participated in about 20 group exhibitions, but no solo exhibitions. I'm unsure how to weigh the importance of solo/group exhibitions in this field. Eleven of his works are in the collection of the Kiyosato Museum of Photographic Arts, which is another good start, but WP:CREATIVE calls for "several notable galleries or museums".

There's a long list of awards, but of the nine that cite a source, the gold and first prizes are in lesser-known contests (Asian Press Photo Contest (APPC), Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand (FCCT) and LightRocket Asia-Pacific Photojournalism Contest) while the awards in the notable contests (National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) Best of Photojournalism Awards, and Pictures of the Year International) are honorable mentions or awards of excellence.

So what do you think, would the encyclopedia be better off if I tried to clean this up, or if I took it to AfD? Thanks, --Worldbruce (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed: It's not obviously either encyclopedic or non-encyclopedic. Recently I've been tending to think that if an article on somebody who's borderline is straightforward and modest, and if there's no reason to think that this will soon change, then as far as I'm concerned it can stay. And this article does seem modest -- except for an unnecessarily long list of honors and almost-honors, which I think can beneficially be stripped of mere honorable mentions. But I don't suppose I'd find backing for this in WP policy. -- Hoary (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you remember this guy at all? Maybe you can help
"Franz Lidz" from 2010. On his talk page you were involved in trying to clear it up back then. No problem if you've forgotten.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Promotional_behavior_by_OPamuk1967b — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastoes777 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't remember at first, no. (Oddly, the photo did look dimly familiar.) Good evidence collection/presentation there, Pastoes777: I enjoyed reading through it, although not in the way that its writer intended. -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

My name is Franz Lidz. For the last 40 years I have worked as a professional journalist. I spent 27 of those years as a senior writer for Sports Illustrated. For the the last five, I have been a columnist for Smithsonian magazine. I am also -- concurrently -- Vice President of Communications of the Detroit Pistons, an NBA franchise owned by Palace Sports & Entertainment. All of these inarguable facts can easily be verified in the External Links section of my Wikipedia page. (For instance, the Sports Illustrated resource search opens to my current bio, which is scrupulously maintained by my longtime employer: https://www.si.com/vault-authors/franz-lidz I’m still a contributor to that magazine). Similarly, the Smithsonian magazine resource search has catalogued my columns - sometimes with additional biographical material - since my hiring in 2012. Both full-time jobs have long been listed on my Wikipedia page.That is, until yesterday, when an editor changed one job title from columnist to "published magazine article writer” and the other to “former vice president.” I should note here that I rarely pay much attention to my page unless a Wikipedia user alerts me to mischief by other users. But yesterday was different. Yesterday morning a college professor sent me a distressing email about what he termed "vandalism and trolling" on the Talk page of my entry. At the time, I wasn't exactly sure where the Talk page was, but when found it, I was horrified. Copy had been mangled, misinformation inserted and aspersions cast on my character and integrity. For reasons I can only guess at, over the last few days one editor implied that I lied at a reading I gave before several hundred people, and that if I hadn't, I should have. (In a subsequent post, he frantically walked back this theory, but the damage had already been done and his biases baldly revealed). In another exchange, the professor mentioned that he teaches my oeuvre in his classes, prompting another editor to snark, "I look forward to the invitation I am sure will be coming from you shortly to look over your course material and help you improve it." (Emphasis mine. In the magazine world, we call this "open contempt" for a subject - not the sort of neutral attitude WP encourages in its editors, is it?) By tacking a couple of demeaning templates onto the first page of the entry, that same editor implicated me, my family, close friends and a onetime Bloomsbury U.S.A.publishing flak in a vast conspiracy to insert my name into pretty much every Wikipedia story ever written. OK, I may be overstating things, but the notion of any conspiracy between me and people close to me (let alone "paid" by me) is as insulting as it is preposterous. (I have no idea who's responsible for the pranks, but pinning the blame on a dead Bloomsbury publicist is probably the wrong way to go). BTW, Bloomsbury delisted the book in question in 2011, at which point the paperback rights were sold to Penguin, which doesn't plan to market it the anniversary of the event, in 2024. Tell me - Why would Bloomsbury care? These Wiki shenanigans - and the egregious behavior of the editors behind them -- both anger and disgust me. Normally, I’d just shrug it off as “kids will be kids.” But Wikipedia editors are alleged to be adults. The Talk page fantasizing and the finger-pointing templates that blanket both pages of my entry are inappropriate, unprofessional, malicious and, in the opinion of PS&E counsel, potentially libelous. And because the pages are on public display, they impugn my professional reputation. According to Talk page guidelines, personal attacks and insults are not allowed (Editor Ken violates this rule repeatedly). Which is why I have been advised to request that the entire entry - including the Talk page -- be "blanked" and replaced by clean, untainted copy. I realize that under normal circumstances, Wikipedia articles should not be blanked. But these aren't normal circumstances. Wikipedia's bylaws state that it is acceptable to blank an article for libel or privacy reasons as an emergency measure, as described in the policy on biographies of living persons. Your rulebook also notes that "completed deletion discussions (or other discussions) may be blanked for reasons of privacy or courtesy to individuals. Which suits me fine. I'd love to put all this behind me and give the page a fresh start. In other words, I'm asking for a common courtesy.

I look forward to your response. FL

FRANZ LIDZ Vice President of Communications 248.377.0148 / office 610.306.7022 / cell flidz@palacenet.com FranzLidz (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the message. I see that you have added a near-identical message at Talk:Franz Lidz; better to pursue the discussion there. -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This made me think of you
Back cover of Tom Lehr album.. Read the reviews. Sorry for the small text. Remember, Great artists steal.That man from Nantucket (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * That is a cromulent record blurb, and the reviews within it do indeed glow. So much, indeed, that I dread to think of the amount of gamma radiation I was exposed to when reading, eyeballs mere millimetres from the screen. Thanks for the heads-up! -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Mail
Softlavender (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Reid Collins & Tsai
Hi. Please tell me why the page Reid Collins & Tsai was deleted. I only see the reason "Created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block" but don't see the discussion. Was there any deletion discussion or it was speedy deleted? Would it be possible for you to recover this article content to my userspace? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The article had been created by User:Vibrant.Wiki. It was speedy-deleted. Why do you want it? -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. I was approached by the agency representing Reid Collins & Tsai. My intention is to recover the article with the proper COI statement through the AfC process. Someone else has already recovered this article as a draft so I will work on it. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

accepting articles
I think you do understand what I'm trying to do, and I want to thank you for your careful analysis. As recently as 3 or 4 years ago, before the problem of promotional editing became so overwhelming, I would also have endorsed your conclusion.  DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thanks! If we were not so far separated (by the Pacific, for a start), I'd be happy to go out for a beer (or whatever) and discuss these matters at length. I certainly do understand your concern, and perhaps the amount of time it took for me to say "keep" will indicate my lack of enthusiasm for this article. -- Hoary (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Sock of Judebob123
looks like a sock of Judebob123 that you blocked. Only reason I'm not blocking yet is because the account was created before the block which could mean it is unrelated but shares the same POV or that it was created in anticipation of the block. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)