Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:01, 1 November 2007

Drake Circus

Next time you want to vandalise real and accurate facts remember there are real p0eople affected by your vandalism. Real people who have post graduate IT skills and can pinpoint any online IP (proxy or otherwise) and there real shopkeepers and pubs with large nasty security guys all of whom along with 27,000 studeents your trolling has pissed off.

• Archive 1 (13 Nov 2004 to 23 Feb 2005)
• Archive 2 (24 Feb 2004 to 27 May 2005)
• Archive 3 (29 May 2005 to 17 Sep 2005)
• Archive 4 (18 Sep 2005 to 9 Nov 2005)
• Archive 5 (13 Nov 2005 to 22 May 2006)
• Archive 6 (23 May 2006 to 4 Oct 2006)
• Archive 7 (6 Oct 2006 to 25 Nov 2006)
• Archive 8 (26 Nov 2006 to 8 Jan 2007)
• Archive 9 (6 Jan 2007 to 8 Feb 2007)
• Archive 10 (8 Feb 2007 to 4 Apr 2007)
• Archive 11 (5 Apr 2007 to 22 May 2007)
• Archive 12 (27 May 2007 to 28 July 2007)
• Archive 13 (22 July 2007 to 28 August 2007)

Deletionists with senses of humor, now that's nice

With that and the death threat I think we've established just what kind of person I am. KP Botany 04:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw, that's OK. Always pleasant to read. Incidentally, the huge majority of changes to my user page aren't made by me; they are, or are in reaction to, incoherent remarks that appear to be about gayness, etc. ("I'm gay": Who, me or Mr Eleven-Year-Old? If the former, it happens to be untrue; but either way, why would anyone care?) Hoary 04:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

FA Harry S. Truman

		The Golden Wiki Award
		For your exceptional contributions to article quality on Misplaced Pages, especially on getting Harry S. Truman to Misplaced Pages:Featured Article status. Rlevse 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well well. I'd been starting to feel guilty about not having continued work on it, and was thinking that it surely should soon be ready for FAC. I'd no idea that it had been proposed there. Congratulations! -- Hoary 14:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

Hi. I'd like to request your guidance in getting the Elvis Presley article up to par for a 'featured try'. Any help you can offer and observations would be great. Thanks. --Northmeister 03:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

One immediate observation on my first look at this article in months is that 141 is still vigorously "contributing", still obsessed with Nick Adams and tittle-tattle, and still unwilling or unable to add edit summaries. My enthusiasm for any involvement in the article thus remains minuscule, as does my expectation that it would get to FA without an dreadfully tiresome whinefest by 141 about alleged "censorship" by "fans", etc etc. -- Hoary 04:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

True, I am afraid. I'm not sure what to do but gain a consensus from many for the articles coverage of topics, look, affirming to wikipedia standards etc, thus bypassing one editors 'gyrations' to use an old word from Elvis' early years. Your experience and the work you did on the Truman article to help them out, would help us out there. Of course I understand if the one editor so mentioned gives you pause - in the very least I could use your input and observations (on my talk if thats necessary) pertaining to how far we have to go or where we could improve the article. Thanks. --Northmeister 13:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Well, technically that's minor. KP Botany 04:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paul Mowatt

I'd forgotten about this. If you feel inspired to re-start the discussion about whether we should have that article, you should go ahead. Jkelly 15:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

But but but there's already been a discussion. It was stopped by some hush-hush "OTRS" manoeuvre. I don't know the secret handshake for OTRS, so haven't a clue what happened. The article can be ignored, and a "fresh" (hollow laugh) AfD can be started: Are these the only two options? If they are and one takes the latter, what are the chances that it too will be spiked via "OTRS"?

Incidentally, one comment (not mine!) in that aborted AfD was Merge and redirect to Marina Ogilvy (which contains most information here but lacks the citations). But ] is no more. -- Hoary 23:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the old discussion is stale, and starting a new one has the advantages of both not being stale and satisfying those people who are particularly concerned with proper XfD process being followed. I can say with reasonable certainty that there won't be any OTRS-mandated "courtesy keep" this time, and would be happy to leave a little note somewhere for the closing admin that the fact that there was last time shouldn't be taken into consideration. On the other hand, I'm not really keeping up to date on en:'s increasingly arcane XfD rules, so maybe there is a better way to handle this. Jkelly 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

gender

Thanks for your edits, which improved it; however, I didn't accept all of them. I've left "sex" as a replacement for "gender"—so you don't mind the clash with the title? I've been told that "sex" is used by biologists, etc.. and "gender" by social scientists. I'm not fussed, though.

Unsure about the impersonal "you" and (as Sam added) "one".

Tony 10:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Heqwm

If you can, please don't respond to Heqwm in the AAVE talk page. If he potentially will read up on linguistics, talking to him will only delay that. If he won't read up on it, there's no point in responding. Ƶ§œš¹ 07:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. -- Hoary 07:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously seeking Hoary

Are you still out to get me? Tidalenergy 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(And when did I stop beating my wife?) I have never been out to get you. What's up? -- Hoary 09:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You're married!Tidalenergy 08:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi -- I wonder if you would be able to assist with a little copyediting? I've nominated Beyond Fantasy Fiction for FAC; at the nomination page there's been a request for an outside copyedit. I recall you were very helpful on my first FAC, Ace Books, so I thought I'd ask. It's quite a short article. If not, no problem; I know good editors are always busy. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's refreshingly short (apropos of which, it got some FAC comments that I'll describe charitably as incoherent). As you'll have seen, I ran through it once. I think there's more to do, but right now I'm too sleepy to do it -- partly because I've wasted too much of the day elsewhere in the defense of dispassion against truthiness.

There's one thing I don't like about the article but didn't fix (?): the explanatory links from bibliographical information within the footnotes. With rare exceptions, I limit links from bibliographical info to (i) those automatically generated from ISBNs, and (ii) links to etexts or web pages of what's listed. Thus I wouldn't say

John Clute and John Grant (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Fantasy. New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 110. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)

but instead something more like

John Clute and John Grant (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Fantasy. New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 110. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)

(if necessary linking to clute and/or Grant in some supplementary explanation). But perhaps this is merely a personal preference. (There are also other, link-irrelevant oddities in that note, but I'll tackle them after I've got some sleep.) -- Hoary 14:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the work so far, and for any more you have time for. For the links, I'd say switch them to whatever you think is best. I don't have a strong opinion on that stuff; I tend to copy whatever was on the last article I worked on. One reviewer systematically changed all my citations to the format you can see in Ine of Wessex; I have since started doing them that way too, since it's slightly simpler -- it puts all the {{cite book}} records at the end, in a reference section, and simplifies the footnotes themselves. As for the comments at FAC, well, I don't always agree with everyone, but I find if I try to make everyone happy it surprises me how often it ends up improving the article. So I try to just stay quiet and go with the flow. Thanks again! Mike Christie (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking me for my opinions on footnotes: the bibliographic templates are designed for lists of references and at best look bizarre within footnotes, and it's shoddy practice (even if common WP practice) to refer generally to entire books that are hundreds of pages long as the sources of discrete facts written up somewhere or other within those books. So I'd like to make a thoroughgoing revision of your footnoting. It wouldn't take that long, and I'd do all the work -- except that I don't have access to any of the materials and therefore of course do not know the page numbers. Does this interest you, and if so can you provide the page numbers? (Or is each of five separate references to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy vol 3 really to p.549?) If you do have the page numbers, I'll forge ahead; if not, I shan't. -- Hoary 00:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have the page numbers. I'll look through as I go down the list but I suspect those numbers are all correct -- I do try to reference to an accurate page number every time. I think the reason is that these are encyclopedia entries, so of course everything about Beyond if found in one place, under the Beyond entry. Taking them one by one:

• Tuck: all p. 549. The entry is written by Tuck himself; if you want the entry identification, it's under Beyond Fiction, in the "Magazines" section of the encyclopedia. The page numbering is continuous across all three volumes, if that matters; in other words this volume starts on p. 531 (after some prefatory material numbered with lower case Roman numerals).
• Ashley, The Time Machines. All from an online copy at Google Books: search for the author and title and it'll pop up. I've ordered a copy for myself but it hasn't arrived yet.
• Clute/Grant, Encyclopedia of Fantasy. All from p. 110. There's another quote that maybe could be worked in: "Today the magazine is remembered more for what it stood for than for its individual contents, and there is much excleent material still to be rediscovered." Also p. 10. The entry is titled Beyond Fantasy Fiction, and is written by Michael Ashley, credited in this book as "Mike Ashley", rather than "Michael".

I think the page numbers are clear for everything else. Does that answer the question? Please do go ahead and make any changes you think are necessary; I appreciate the help. Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you're done. Thanks for helping, both with the footnotes and the copyediting. Not sure if this one will make it through FAC, but I appreciate it regardless. Mike Christie (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a question about one of the changes you made -- I had some facts cited to the original issues. You've moved those to the online index, which I think is generally an improvement. However, there are three facts which I think can only be cited to the issues themselves, not the index: the direct quote from Gold's editorial; the way the title reads on the masthead and table of contents, and the fact that it printed the fiction in two columns. If you agree, I'll return those to a separate footnote to the issues themselves. Mike Christie (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course. Actually I don't quite understand what the problem is, but I think it's highly likely that I made some goof or other. Incidentally, in what's now note 9, Malcolm Edwards describes it as... really should have an article title. -- Hoary 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes -- if you're curious, the problem was that for example I quoted Gold from the July 1953 issue, but it wasn't cited to the 1953 issue, just to the index -- which doesn't have the quote, just a listing of the editorial title. So I reffed a couple of things to the actual issues. I did fix the Malcolm Edwards note too. Looks like I picked up another support on the strength of your copyedit, so it may pass now -- thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

If I had known you were an administrator I would have sucked up appropriately instead of threatening to kill you and sending you vomit. KP Botany 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Me three. Tidalenergy 08:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Trashorama

Over the past few weeks I've discovered a slew of publisher sock puppet accounts created for adding scientific journals to Misplaced Pages articles and multiply linking them in Misplaced Pages--a dozen, maybe a couple of dozen socks, and hundreds of edits, doing the SEO for their bosses. See User:DGG's page for updates. I wanted the socks blocked, every single one of them, even though they had only edited one day, in order to send a message to the publishers. I always wanted the current active sock blocekd. I think I was called a troll. As far as I can see, the sock puppet publishers won, and they showed they knew it by throwing up a whole new slew of spam links. David's taking care of it, though. And, I, in defiance of the administrators who think the publisher socks, who've been doing it since 2004, are Misplaced Pages's best friends, am reverting every single one I find. And this, apparently, is what makes me a troll. KP Botany 03:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(And I've just now been told to fuck off. Aw. . . .) Yes, I saw a bit of the linking. It didn't make sense to me. I mean, it didn't look like spamming (as it was to so many different things), but I couldn't work out what the hell it was. Maybe some innocent soul who gets a really, really big kick out of citation-stuffing. I thought I'd just let this enthusiasm burn itself out. Maybe that was too hasty. Well. do keep me up to date, and maybe I'll then do something. (If I haven't already stuck my head in an oven, of course.) -- Hoary 14:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that better than or worse than my sending you vomit? Vomit's such a tangible thing, you see, compared to a mere fuck you. I tell people to fuck off left and right, I tell people to fuck off day and night, but vomit, now that's special. David's dedicated to talking to them. He reminds me of MrDarcy--too nice for Misplaced Pages's good, but both capable of using brains in addition to diplomacy. So, I'll let you know what inteteresting comes up. I'm on vacation now, sorta, so I won't be watching them for a while, and they're wathcing me looking for the chance.... KP Botany 05:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Vomit was a most memorable tribute. Gold, frankincense, myrrh: same old same old. But vomit, now that's an entirely different kettle of aspic. Yes, I shall treasure that vomit on my user page. And yet I don't want to belittle a fuck you. Linguistically, they're remarkable. Quang Phúc Ðông (said to be of the South Hanoi Institute of Technology) published a learned paper on them, titled "English sentences without overt grammatical subject", one that still packs a punch when you encounter it in Studies Out in Left Field (recommended). -- Hoary 08:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Phouc (as I've always called him, oh, and pronounced "Fook," by the way) is one of my heroes. I was thinking about him the other day when reading an article in the New York Times about the Chinese preparing translations for the Olympics. I used to collect Asian translation gems from electronics inserts. KP Botany 03:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is for "grown ups"?

here you say that "Misplaced Pages is for grown ups". What does this mean? Does this mean that non "grown ups" can not read wikipedia? That they can not edit wikipedia? Non-adults both edit and read wikipedia and as far as I know there are no prohibitions to their doing so. Wikidudeman 18:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

He was responding to the antics of another user who had added the highly intellectual words "farts and poo" to somebody else's comment. Such behaviour is generally considered childish, so yes, such childish behaviour is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Mature behaviour naturally doesn't consist of such language. ···巌流 19:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say "Misplaced Pages is for Grownup behavior", He said "Misplaced Pages is for grown ups". I know the vandals edits were childish. Wikidudeman 19:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what the sentence was referring to: the childish edits in question. If such behaviour would be considered childish, then thus, the exact opposite, mature, or "grown-up" behaviour is definitely required on Misplaced Pages. We are talking about behaviour here, not assumed age brackets. If you are already aware of Misplaced Pages's policies, then I must ask, why this curious debate regarding semantics? ···巌流 20:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I was asking Hoary, since he never used the word "behavior". If he meant "grown up behavior" and not literally adults then I agree. However if he meant that Misplaced Pages is meant for adults opposed to non-adults then I would disagree with this. Wikidudeman 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear what he meant. Leebo /C 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also think it can be fairly easy to assume that the term used was in reference to the childish antics in question, instead of any particular age brackets, as the antic in question was cited immediately prior to the sentence. As far as I am aware, the user in question did not reveal his age. Therefore, yes, the term was indeed referring to the user's edits. A term's context depends on its source. ···巌流 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent answers, 巌流先生. But just in case there's any lingering ambiguity: Children (as well as those in their second childhood) are welcome to contribute to WP, as long as they behave more or less like sober adults. Childish 25-year-olds aren't welcome; conscientious 12-year-olds are. (As for reading WP, anyone can of course do this in any way whatever.) -- Hoary 00:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

pre-dinosaur

Palaeoconservatives!!! I love it. Hoary, you do have a witty way. But on a serious note, at least one antagonist is so upset that he's listed me twice in one day on some Wiki-etiquette list; and he's having a proper go at Sandy, too. Phew. We'll keep standing as much as they want to blow the house down, but it's sickening. Tony 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• People who call others Nazis shouldn't throw stones. >Radiant< 15:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• • That's a fascinating link. Actually Tony doesn't call anyone a Nazi, but he does call somebody crazy. That's very naughty of him. But apropos of rule-breaking, I am most alarmed by:
    
    <b><font color="#0000DD">><font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>
    
    The outermost part, with <b>, is well-formed; but the multiple opening of <font> is tag soup (quite aside from the fact that <font> is deprecated). Here's the way to do it: <b><span style="color:#00D">></span><span style="color:#06F">R</span><span style="color:#09F">a</span><span style="color:#0CF">d</span><span style="color:#0EF">i</span><span style="color:#0CF">a</span><span style="color:#09F">n</span><span style="color:#06F">t</span><span style="color:#00D"><</span></b>
    
    Seems a huge waste of bytes, though. Still, your sig wouldn't suffer much prettiness diminution by simplifying to: <b><span style="color:#00D">></span><span style="color:#06F">R</span><span style="color:#09F">a</span><span style="color:#0CF">dia</span><span style="color:#09F">n</span><span style="color:#06F">t</span><span style="color:#00D"><</span></b>
    
    Actually I'd just write >Radiant<. The radiance of your text can still impress. -- Hoary 01:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For your new category

How bout this then. :) Gwen Gale 15:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But unfortunately it must be a painting.

Oh dear, I'm going to have to pull out the art books. Though the richest period isn't represented so well in my extremely uneven collection (which includes a whole book on representations of Europa, but next to nothing on a great number of painters whose works I enjoy, let alone those I don't). -- Hoary 23:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks

As Thursday night is Friday night in the Arab world, I was thinking of hitting the Hilton for five or six. In return I offer an axe; this will aid in wading through the reactionary shit that the suggestion of a gender neutral guideline has provoked. Goodness, last I checked it was 2007. Marskell 17:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested...

...in my current conversation with the ever interesting Geogre: User_talk:Geogre#Singular_they. I'm not asking for a tag team, but you seem to be familiar with most of the style guides so perhaps you have a comment. Marskell 13:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, my thanks again for the splendid implement that you kindly gave me. I intend to carry it with my on trips to the mustiest of libraries, on the off-chance that I might be accosted by the irate ghost of the ghastly Mr Strunk.

A long time ago, I first encountered Fowler's MEU. A lot of it was reasonable and reasoned, and even wittily expressed. I then found Gowers's Plain Words, again fairly reasonable and reasoned, if stolid and rather quickly boring. I then promptly lost my interest in such stuff, although I did find very enjoyable American Tongue and Cheek, a book that debunks American prescriptivist twaddle. Six or seven years ago this enjoyment was almost reignited in a chapter on "language mavens" in Pinker's The Language Instinct; but really, discussion of misunderstandings of language is feeble stuff beside discussion of what language really is, and so this is not one of the most gripping chapters of Pinker's excellent book.

And that's it. I still have the old family copy of MEU, I have The Language Instinct for prescriptivism-unrelated reasons, and I may even have American Tongue and Cheek somewhere too. I have a copy of an edition of Chicago that predates its silly addition of advice on prose. And I have several dozen intelligent books on language. Reading a book on language by somebody like Jackendoff is wonderfully tonic: one's reminded again of just how silly is the talk of the alleged decay of language at the hands of barbarians who confuse number, who "split infinitives", etc.

I feel sorry for Tony, who has wasted a lot of time over this; but I confess to having enjoyed the sight of highly literate and otherwise intelligent and articulate people uttering the silliest nonsense. The business about the immutability of number is daft. Scissors and remains are very different English nouns that are syntactically plural for no obvious semantic reason; Spanish uses a third-person pronoun (with third-person verb agreement) for a second-person referent; etc. We're even told in all seriousness that anything that ever was a mistake still is a mistake: since in Shakespeare's day lexical verbs could be inverted in questions (Know you ...?), the first ever incidences of auxiliary do (Do you know ...?) must have been pointlessly prolix at best; and by this logic any auxiliary use of do in a question must be wrong (by contrast, Do you your make-up? would be fine).

So no, I don't have the style guides. And Geogre's writing on his talk page is hilariously old-fogeyish; if I added sensible comments there I might dampen his ardour, considerably reducing the entertainment; or on the contrary bring on an infarction.

Uh-oh, it's bed time. Tomorrow I'll see if I can find Tongue and Cheek. -- Hoary 16:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

...I confess to having enjoyed the sight of highly literate and otherwise intelligent and articulate people uttering the silliest nonsense

That's what I said, in so many words, to Tony :) Gwen Gale 16:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Re tendentious conversations—no, I can't say I thrive on them. The occasional diversion is fine, but visiting user talk should never become the main reason to log in. Indeed, my option three is probably an invitation to reams of wasted kb.

The non-negotiable comment was indeed a gas. In the second language environment that I inhabit, speakers have taken up 'equipments' and 'staffs' (workers)—negotiating the oddities of English just fine. If 'equipments' is standard in 50 years, will I mind? Of course not. And don't forget that in 50 years India will have near the same influence on the language as the Anglosphere—won't the prescriptivists have their shorts in a knot then. (Other items I like: "I am paining" and "I am having a flu"—the continuous actually makes more sense.) Marskell 15:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The good news and the bad: I've found my copy of American Tongue and Cheek and it's even better than I remember: a marvelous guide to the pomposity, ignorance, wrong-headedness, and sloppiness (or even dishonesty) of these self-appointed "language experts". Claims of both the alleged illogicality/wrongness of singular they and the alleged defects of AAVE are dealt with, among much else. I'd already realized that there was little chance of singular they being dealt with intelligently (or even ignored) in any putatively relevant guideline while its own article (which I'd just glanced at) was a mess; it was only this evening, however, that I started to go through it and realized that it was and remains grotesquely prolix and repetitive. I don't understand why it deserves an article at all, but if it's adjudged to deserve one, then it should get one that enlightens people: as the article stands, it seems designed by and for some obsessed minority.

You've given me just the implement I need to tackle that article. Can you think of any reason (apart from demands on me by the "real world", etc.) why I shouldn't use it? If you have a similar implement, can we knock back some beers and get to work on the thing together? -- Hoary 14:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, if I had hacksaw to go with the axe I've passed along, I'd certainly wade in. Unfortunately, part of being in this second language environment (Mid. East) is a lack of access to a good library. After the obvious stuff (Harry Potter et al.), the bookstores proceed on a random checklist basis, as near as I can tell. I really ought to have a style guide, as part of what I'm apparently doing here is tutoring and editing. But it's at such a level that simply being a native speaker is sufficient.

I'm armed with google, of course, so I can try to help. (What has principally motivated me in these discussions are memories of my greatest teacher holding forth on the subject.) Marskell 16:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And who might they have been?

As for the lack of a good library, I feel your pain. ("My" library is only intermittently good.) ABE was a fine resource till recently, when airmail prices from the US seem to have gone up a lot. Still, I got two books via them just yesterday. Yes, even if you throw in a rather excessive airmail charge, the total for this should be palatable. -- Hoary 23:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoary, I had meant to reply again (I'll get back to you on who the teacher in question is). And I'll make sure to get on the right side of Rapture when somebody finally gives me a date for the event. Of course, you've already told me God himself approves of singular they, so my to-do list is that much shorter.

But it's a fad, you see. GNL is a thirty year-old fad. Why do you think Cambridge is one of the top two in the UK and top ten in the world? By following fads, of course. That the legal profession uses it, I've just been told, counts for nothing. Of course not—it's a fad. Apparently the UN doesn't count for much either, as no one was jumping at my link. Along with Peacekeeping and World Heritage Sites, GNL is just another fad in the hands of that lot. Marskell 15:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User warning.

This was one of the most laugh out loud section titles I could have imagined! The user's now been blocked BTW. Nice one !! Pedro |  Chat  11:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:DragonflySixty7? Is this some video game or a copy of admin User:DragonflySixtyseven? KP Botany 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooperhoofd

Remember when Doceiras criticized Ooperhoofd's responses as cryptic in the discussion thread?

Once the discussion on EN wrapped, I too felt that Ooper's responses were not helpful, but I wanted to communicate this in a civil manner. I want you to read User_talk:Ooperhoofd#French_MOS-JA - I wanted to bring my concerns about Ooper's responses in a civil, calm, kind manner. WhisperToMe 16:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read all that stuff.

Other than those in the tourist trade (who stand to make money), people don't much like being addressed in a foreign tongue. It's customary at least to greet them in their own, even if this is whatever Babelfish fondly thinks is the equivalent of "Pardon me for writing in English, but very unfortunately I can't express myself in ".

But I think that this point has already been made.

Of course the French decision is utterly ridiculous. But an outsider is less unlikely to change it if they write the Babelfished derivative of "I'm very surprised by the order. The kanji make the order look Japanese, but the order is not Japanese. I fear that people who do not know about Japanese may be misled." (I'm avoiding pronouns as I'm assuming that Babelfish wouldn't know what they referred to, and could get genders, etc., mixed up.) -- Hoary 08:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Bratislava

Hi. You have recently commented to the Bratislava candidacy and now I'd like to discuss points raised (better here because I don't want to clog up that candidacy page). 1. It may be true, but from the featured articles I've seen, most have Geography as 2nd or 3rd section, always after History, so, in my opinion, it is OK as it is now. 2. I'm not very sure what do you mean here. To the dating, it is clearly said they come from 2001 census and may not be correct right now, that's for sure. But do you mean that I should simplify, remove or spin off these data into their own article? But I admit that Demographics sections are usually the most boring. 3. Although personally I would use only metric equivalents for some reasons, I guess who are keen supporters of imperial units would only swear that they can't understand how much is that. 4. I think this particular is OK, I don't have reason right now to delete it. But I admit that there is a chance of some facts repeating. MarkBA 08:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I must admit I very rarely examine such WP articles. But in books, geography usually comes first. (What would later become the city was a convenient fording point, and therefore prehistoric peoples did such and such, etc.)
2. I think the precision is bogus. Do you reproduce this bogus precision, saying to yourself and the world that you're faithfully transcribing what has been authoritatively written, or do you do some rounding? Would the latter invite the charge of "OR"? (Sometimes it seems that any use of a human brain does.) I dunno.
3. Yes, you're screwed by the stupid MoS. I find it hard to believe that literate US, Burmese or Liberian people don't understand the metric system fairly well (which isn't to claim that they're as familiar with it as they are to feet and the rest), and particularly that those US, Burmese or Liberian people wanting to read about Bratislava are so baffled by metric units that they need a translation for every single figure. But a vociferous faction in WP is deeply conservative and deeply suspicious of nefarious foreign attempts to bring the US into the 19th (let alone 20th or 21st) century. So right, there's nothing you can do.
4. Did you print out the whole thing? I haven't done so and (sorry) don't have any immediate plans to do so, but experience tells me that dead-tree reproduction makes a lot of oddities stand out.

Good luck with it. -- Hoary 08:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, the location commonly determines the history of the city, what is a particularly good case for Bratislava. But, I think the order is solid right now and if I would swap these two, I would need to change layout as well.
2. Sorry, but I still don't understand your point. I don't know what precision has to do with this one, when it's no estimate. Rounding could produce some inaccuracies I'm afraid, and some would think I'm making original research.
3. True. I could remove imperial measurements, but sooner or later someone would re-add them again, so in principle there's nothing I can do.
4. Well, I'm not fan of printing articles like this (according to preview, the article as it stands now would equal to 15 pages) and I believe inaccuracies or repetition can be found by ordinary means anyway, though some probably are "invisible" to me, as I'm one of the major authors of this one. Some copy-editing suggestions (if any) would be welcome, though. MarkBA 11:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

2. (a) For religion in particular: I cannot believe that any census can ascertain religion (or atheism) meaningfully for the very young, the very ill, the mad, the severely retarded, the comatose, the senile, etc. (b) For censuses in general: although a census can claim whatever degree of precision it likes, I cannot believe that any census has an accuracy of better than one in a thousand. These figures imply an accuracy of one in a hundred thousand. (c) Again for censuses in general: numbers such as this will change day by day. However the census itself takes days. Another reason why exact numbers are meaningless.

3. Oh no, it's worse than that. If you took out a lot of the olde-worlde measurements (let alone all of them), the article would fail in FAC.

-- Hoary 14:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

2. It's obvious that numbers like this change every day, and they differ when that census was done six years ago. So to conclude, what should I do? Round them, delete them, move them?

3. So let's leave it as is.

PS: if we will agree on some point, regardless how, we could post some notice on the FAC page. MarkBA 15:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(pardon for such edit) Well, while I was debating here, user:Tankred has gone into action and reworded Demographics and re-ordered Geography. Please check if this was done to your satisfaction. Cheers, MarkBA 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well...

At this point I no longer care. The vandal's obviously a little kid, and the vandalism wasn't really that bad, and a ridiculous amount of time has been wasted on it. However, it was my first day back to reverting some vandalism, and it was apparently not the world's greatest idea on my part. I posted a vandal to WP:AIV, User:68.111.80.179. The user had three prior blocks for vandalism on his block log, the last one for 72 hours, with a warning that a subsequent vandalism would be for a longer period of time. User:DexHexer blocked the vandal for 24 hours. I asked why he blocked the vandal for only 24 hours when the prior block had been for 72 hours. What followed could only happen on the web, and would probably invovle me and an en.wiki administrator, as it did. I did not post the vandal's IP in my post to DexHexer's page, and did not realize that he patrols Wikipeida blocking hundreds of vandals, and appearently DexHexer thought I was asking a generic question, and didn't bother to ask what I was refering to, though it's hard to see how he'd assume with such a specific question that I was speaking generically, and DexHexer proceeded to provide me with technical answers about a blocking script he is using, which bored me even more than the original vandal.

My mantra will now be, "I will not revert vandalism, I will not revert vandalism, I will not revert vandalism, I will not revert vandalism, I will not revert vandalism, .... KP Botany 23:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The truly irritating thing is getting other people to something about vandalism. Doing it yourself is a major bore, but also much less of a bore, as the curtest of explanations will suffice. The way forward for you is therefore clear:

-- Hoary 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Turns out the punk admin had much more going for him than I gave him credit. KP Botany 01:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ice-sorting

Up till now we've usually sorted Icelanders by first name in articles that consist mainly of Icelanders but by last name in more general categories (like, say, "1903 births"). Haukur 08:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Er . . . well you're Icelandic, and I'm not; and you know about Iceland, and I don't . . . but I'd be inclined to sort them all in one way. Indeed, if you don't do so then some bot is going to go through them all, sorting them all in whatever its programmer thinks is the or right way, or (if it notices contradictions) throwing up error messages or whatever. Let's keep it simple, and (as long as others don't kick up a major fuss) let's get it right. -- Hoary 08:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally object to sorting them all by first name (indeed, that would be my personal preference). I'm just pointing out that the situation I described has been stable for quite a while (the occasional bot-mistakes notwithstanding) and I fear we may get objections. Haukur 08:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Then let's argue against those objections. (A problem may arise if people find othat other reference books in English mis-sort Icelandic names: a vociferous minority of en:WP editors seem very certain that (i) en:WP should not rise above the mistakes of other works, and (ii) en:WP should not challenge the misunderstandings of its American readers.) -- Hoary 13:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. This is an argument I'm not keen on having so I say we tread gently and move slowly. Haukur 13:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In my Iceland-ignorant way, I have no references books in any language that deal much with Iceland. Not even a "Lonely Planet" guidebook. Perhaps you could list a few that get it right. (Or do they all get it wrong?) Anyway, it seems nuts to recognize in his article that (say) Ragnar is the primary name of the man but elsewhere to pretend that this is instead Axelsson. -- Hoary 13:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Some books written in English on Icelandic topics following Icelandic naming conventions throughout. Example. Some follow Icelandic naming conventions for the medieval period but not for anything post-reformation.Example. Maybe there are some who treat patronymics as surnames even for medieval people, I don't know. Haukur 14:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To me, the first option seems simple and (as it respects the reality of Icelandic names) sensible. So gather a few more English-language books that use it, present these as precedents, and go with it. -- Hoary 14:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I do approve of using Icelandic naming conventions throughout and now that you've formalized a guideline there's no way to get the sugar cube back out of the tea. The only concession I'm talking about is sorting Icelanders by last names in categories that consist mostly of non-Icelanders. I think there is a reasonable argument for this (I can elaborate on it if you'd like) and I think it's a reasonable concession to make to those who favor using the last names. Haukur 16:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A related point has just come up on the relevant talk page. Could you possibly respond there? As I point out, I'm an ignoramus. -- Hoary 00:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Takashi Oyama

I saw this on the PROD list, and thought I'd see if you had anything to add, since I know you have contributed to a lot of articles about Japanese photographers. Neier 10:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up.

To me, fashion photography largely means something that provides a livelihood for photographers and that even lets them "buy" free time in which they can do interesting, frock-unrelated work. I'm definitely no expert.

Great "references"! I can't find anything about this person (for which very minor claims are made). I'm not rushing to remove the PROD template. -- Hoary 13:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious whether you've ever heard of the Nakayama Fashion Guide, or if you know when the Osaka Photography Academy opened. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't even guess what the "Nakayama Fashion Guide" might be. Offhand I don't know about any photography schools in Osaka: I'm sure that several existed, but my sources would name them in Japanese, not in English.

The article smells to me of a private joke. It's also puffed up with trivia: It's utterly uninteresting that somebody was friends with a baseball player or a (ridiculously misnamed) karate teacher. If it's really true that this person existed and took photos of Monroe, my response is still "So what?" As long as the writer of the article can't be bothered to explain, let's not waste any more time on it. Later, if somebody can demonstrate convincingly that Oyama existed and that his photos were or are notably published or exhibited, Oyama can then get an article. -- Hoary 00:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 01:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

THANKS!!

Hi, now with your final touch I think the article look good.NGL 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hi Hoary, just wondering if you got the email I sent you? --jjron 08:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I received one message, thank you, and replied to it three days ago; did you not receive that, or are you wondering about a reply to some second message (which I haven't received)? -- Hoary 09:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC) PS I've just sent my reply a second time. -- Hoary 09:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, didn't get it; better check my junk mail... OK, the second one is in my inbox. And now found the first one in my junk mail folder - I wonder why it filtered the first one into there. Right, hopefully that's sorted. --jjron 10:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, because what I write is junk? (Another possibility is that the "From" line is in a sense a fake: I'm not actually using that dot.com in order to write my messages.) -- Hoary 10:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd sort Hoary the same way. Then there's always my reason: I'm clueless about why or how something winds up in my junk e-mail folder. Every once in a while one of my technical list serves goes dead in discussion. A few days and hundred messages later I find out I've somehow sent it to junk e-mail. KP Botany 05:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigrid Lidströmer

Hey. I assume Sigrid Lidströmer was mainly written by Nike George at User:Nike George/Draft. Please make a dummy edit to the article and credit him. The terms of GFDL require attribution, which is why cut-and-paste is a bad thing unless you would be the only author of the page. Thanks, Prolog 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You're entirely right. I've just now made the edit that you recommended. -- Hoary 03:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It didn't take, so I did it again. -- Hoary 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Curiosity Question

When did you become an administrator at Misplaced Pages?

03:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't remember. -- Hoary 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. -- Hoary 04:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Another question: why do so many people tend to come and vandalize your pages? Not just you specifically, but other editors, most likely the well-known hard-working ones.

Artisol

—Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I might guess, but I don't know. You could try asking here, the talk page of the person who's most recently exhibited symptoms of some sort of obsession with me. -- Hoary 04:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

David M. Spindel

Hi Hoary, I was just wondering if the article (David M. Spindel) you commented about at Sixstring's talk page looks the same, or is it a different one? I ask, because I was helping him (He's a relatively new editor) keep it long enough to add more info, but I do not want to enable a copyvio. I didn't notice that it looked copied when I went to the website you mentioned. thanks, R. Baley 18:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being concerned about this kind of thing. No, the new article is quite different, and not problematic. (The old one stank of advertising: if I hadn't deleted it as a copyright violation, I'd have flagged it for its tone.) -- Hoary 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Take care, R. Baley 00:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

71.60.63.183‎'s list

This is an interesting list that Crazytales deleted. It could be a who's who of influential admins taken from some site like Misplaced Pages Review. What makes it especially interesting is that most of these admins never interacted with this IP -- leading me to believe that this was a knowledgeable troll and not just the kiddie vandal I'd made him out to be. It's also interesting that he never reset his modem to change IPs -- again, another possible indicator of a troll and not just another everyday vandal.

Oh well, he's gone ... for now. --A. B. 01:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I rather liked the list, as it claimed that Hoary was a sockpuppet of, inter alia, Hoary. Meanwhile, it has never occurred to me that I was an influential admin. When I do voice a would-be influential opinion, it's usually shot down (or perhaps these shootings-down just stay longer in my memory).

Maybe he's just too "challenged" to change his IP number. If I either had more energy or could write Spanish, I'd watch his doings at es:WP. -- Hoary 03:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Solution...

Hi Hoary! Thank you for all your wise advices. I have come up with a hopefully good solution - is to allowed for me to just write a "redirect ---> LL" on the femmage-page? Then, if someone searches for the word they'll come to the source. Could I just do this? I haven't done it, since I wanted to ask first and avoid causing of illfeelings...Nike George 07:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a redirect seems an acceptable idea. -- Hoary 09:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, done. Now for something else...will write something completely different.Nike George 18:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Frederick Russell Burnham

Could you take a gander at this FAC? Rlevse 13:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! But not immediately, I'm afraid. -- Hoary 13:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Argument?

I wonder if you might want to take a look at this?

• Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Questioning use of -tenno suffix

A different approach to dispute ...? --Ooperhoofd 14:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For rv'ing the vandalism on my user page! -- But|seriously|folks  18:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

FA Bratislava

Hi Hoary. I don't know if you're still watching this FAC, but could you look into the changes and express your opinion? Regards, MarkBA 12:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Shall do, but I'm afraid you'll have to wait a few hours. -- Hoary 14:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I just hope it won't close in the meantime, because I already asked two other but there has been no response so far. MarkBA 16:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tzeli Hadjidimitriou

Hi Hoary, I've been trying to find references and sources, the work is not finish yet, still I would like, if have you have time, for you to give a look at it to see if I'm on the right track. I've been reading around to see how to write a biography correctly, still it seems I got some details wrong. For example I thought I had to have an infobox, apparently I was wrong. Thanks, --Dia^ 15:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look within the next 24 hours. (Meanwhile, no, the article certainly doesn't need an infobox.) -- Hoary 15:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hamsters

Well I asked for that I suppose :)

Now I have to dig out the back issues of Kerrang! I'll have to delete the Noel Redding one as it was announced by Redding at a gig he was playing with The Hamsters. I have pics of it but not quite sharp enough for lip reading :P. I could do with your advice on presenting the first quote though. It was made live on-air when Bob Harris was doing a Hamsters back to back feature. I have the show on Minidisk somewhere, so do you think an audio sample would cut it as a reference? I'm buggered if I can remember the date of the show though. Cheers. ---- WebHamster 01:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I fear that most of the quotations are "unencyclopedic" even if sourced. I mean, how encyclopedic is it to present even exquisitely sourced statements that this or that band (song, Biblical prophet, gossip column, casket) is the greatest? When in doubt, cut!

Not apropos of the Hamsters: Sometimes when I'm bored and want unintended amusement I look at an article about a one-time idol of middle America. Look at this crapola fix (late-night and sleepy, so I could have missed something). I was almost sorry to delete mention of an "iconic and legendary career", wahaha. ("Iconic" and "legendary": Two favorite words within truly bad Misplaced Pages writing.) -- Hoary 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're probably right, they do seem a bit PR-ish. I'll nuke them all. Actually they were in there from a very early draft that I never really gave much thought to (I haven't spent much time on that article recently). Thanks for the heads up though, and for helping out with Solkaige. ---- WebHamster 01:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

BWAH

Thanks for catching that typo. It's late and I should be asleep, but got caught up in trying to straight this one out a bit. You know you're in trouble when persuant is the only word you can think of for...what was it? Anyway, thanks for the smile. -Jmh123 07:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating

Great page --- thanks for the entertainment. (I don't get out much since the back problem) Tidalenergy 08:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to learn that the page went down well.

Er, which page? -- Hoary 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

UM -- this one! Ha!Tidalenergy 03:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wolverine tom-foolery

OMG. Tony (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup", "Merge"etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 08:03 16 October 2007 (GMT).

I quite agree. I'm surprised to receive this warning. Where did I perpetrate this particular gaffe? (Perhaps I was sleepy.) -- Hoary 08:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC) .........PS Ah. -- Hoary 10:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman

There is a discussion that you might want to weigh in on, Talk:Harry_S._Truman#The_.22Roswell_Incident.22, thanks. WikiDon 05:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Japanese photographers

Hi. Thanks for your note. Yes i happened to come across the polbot adding all these photographers and thought I might check one out. Well this is what wikipedia is all about building it together in phases. Unfortunately I am always very busy with film and music related articles but I always try to work on other articles. I'll try to expand a few from time to time. Now logic tells me there are quite a few Japanese photographers!! Regards baldy ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 10:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll add the link to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject History of photography/Japanese photographers in my notebook. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 10:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

RC

No good deed goes un... After doing the work to restore a disambiguation page, then rewrite and correct this article on a subject of no interest to me, and having had all those ugly tags posted on my talk page, I just now see that the article was @#!&% redundant anyway! But thanks for your intervention on my behalf. Pinkville 01:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Can the "new" article be speedy deleted? Pinkville 01:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was an economical solution. Thanks. Pinkville 11:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the existing article, I wonder why it doesn't just start The sun shines out of Robert Cohen's -- er, no, forget it; we have three hundred Japanese photographers to busy ourselves with. -- Hoary 13:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I used an SPF 30 while reading it. Pinkville 17:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

AngelOfSadness talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cheers for the user talkpage revert :D AngelOfSadness talk 13:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Personas in the SCA

As a player in these Current Middle Ages for over a third of a century, I feared that the use of the term "persona" in the Society for Creative Anachronism was idiosyncratic enough that a separate link on the dab page was called for. I gather you disagree. --Orange Mike 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the brief explanation provided suggested that the use was so near to that in the persona article itself as not to need any further explanation. (And of course WP is not a dictionary anyway.) -- Hoary 05:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:A-paintings-Ego.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:A-paintings-Ego.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Many thanks for your kind and personal attention to this matter. -- Hoary 05:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

padded notes & references

What are your thoughts on this edit? Pinkville 02:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Moderately evil. Can you come up with any good reason why the article shouldn't have bog-standard references? ¶ Incidentally, do you have any (probably English-language, US) resources on this bloke? I have some quasi-specifics on his time in Seattle, but they've been katakainized or translated into Japanese, and I don't want to apply guesswork to them. -- Hoary 03:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Beato Refs - all bells and whistles, signifying nothing (Macbeth II). Re: Fuku, because I'm a tasteless anglophone, his name was bound to stick in my mind, and I'm pretty confident I saw something about him in one or another of the books I have access to... I'll have a gander. Pinkville 11:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on my "contributions" over the next five minutes or so; look for another Italianish name. -- Hoary 11:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note

Remember that hoaxes aren't valid speedy deletion candidates, since there's always that vague chance that they mightn't be hoaxes in the first place. That was why I'd Prod'ed Kingsley edwards. I won't contest the deletion, though, since the article was clearly not long for this world anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. It was not only a hoax, it was obvious garbage. Here we go (and sprinkle "" to taste): Kingsley James Edwards is a best selling novelist for such books as "Me, Myself And The Wookies", it's sequal, "Me, Myself And The Ewoks" And "Pilot Harris And The Yellow Greenness". / These books sold thousands copies each and are loved by middle aged men all over the world. Kingsley also owns a fanclub for The Pope and sir Paul Mcartny. / 'Me, Myself and The Wookies' was a best selling novel, based on actual events, written and sold in 2004. Here is an extract from his thrilling true story. 'The Wookies, big, tall and strong lifted me 5 ft into the air, i was scared, very scared. He then hugged me and I wondered, When will he kill me? But then I remembered, my special pumpkin juice and i sprayed it into his eyes. He was blinded and I ran, ran for my very existance.' You can tell that this should have been a No.1 selling novel. Yes, and I can tell that this article was written by somebody with a mental age of 11 at most. Perhaps the fact that the article was first created by this remarkable username merely indicates the depth of somebody's affection for this real-world author. Fine. Then somebody with a mental age of thirteen or above can later come along and create an entirely different article, since the most charitable interpretation of this one is that it's a crock. Speedy deletion doesn't prejudge the fate of a different article created on the same subject. You and I and dozens of other people here who have mental ages of fifteen or above waste way too much of our time in the delicate handling of the effusions of a lot of people who are very childish indeed. My life's too short. If I see something purporting to be an article but having a closer resemblance to doggy-do, I shall delete it. For me, this is one of the few places where "BOLD" and "IAR" converge. ¶ The only regrets I have about this particular event is that a look at the edit history shows some truly bizarre edits by me: blanking, unprotecting, etc. The idea was of course to delete, recreate as a blank, and protect, in view of our little friend's willingness and ability to come up with one username after another. -- Hoary 11:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta FA

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Many thanks for the early catch and revert of the vandalism to my user page. It seems we (or maybe it's just me!) may have ruffled some immature feathers :) ---- WebHamster 13:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes? I was starting to get the opposite idea: second childhood, as you might say. Or anyway that Plymouth was a special place, populated by very special users. What could be more lamebrained than vandalizing somebody else's user page and not managing to spell "paedophile" right? Next perhaps we'll be told that "countless" means well under a hundred. -- Hoary 15:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)