This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Poeticbent (talk | contribs) at 17:10, 8 May 2007 (Speaking of which). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:10, 8 May 2007 by Poeticbent (talk | contribs) (Speaking of which)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion. If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will be watching it, so you're most welcome to reply there rather than here. I've assiduously followed the advice on this page and have shunted earlier banter and repartee to:- 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)
Laurence Olivier
I've secured semi-protection of this page for ten days because of copyvio posting. Their latest effort is a huge chunk from the WP article on Vivien Leigh, which needs to be cut back severely. If you haven't the time for another look, I'll give it a try. Given your earlier edits, you would probably do the better job! --Old Moonraker 15:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
SLR chronology
Hello Hoary: I'm glad that liked my chronology; I've literally spent decades accumulating all of that info and I used some of it to write several individual SLR articles for Misplaced Pages. I'm happy that at least one other person finds it all interesting too. If you want to "swipe" it, please feel free. I've noticed Camerapedia.org before, but I haven't dug deeply. Maybe I'll try it. Paul1513 20:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Howdy!
Long time no see! hope all is well - I'm back from vacation and my books are unpacked, heh. I've made the fixes that I could at She Shoulda Said No, and I did a rather massive revamping of Mom and Dad last month to try and minimize the identicalness of that and Krog. I think we're close...care to work any further or have I burned you out? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm just burned out, sorry. But maybe I'll take a look later. -- Hoary 02:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- no problem, understandible. Seems like you've been through the wringer, too. Anything I can help with, or are you just on a bit of a break? --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Success brings repeat business
Someone outside the Scouting project nom'd Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) for FAC. We knew it wasn't ready but let it run, figuring it's a good way for input. It did improve a lot, but the writing was not up to snuff and that part still needs work. Since you did so well at the last article you copyedited for us, could you look at it for us? You're better than we are at this. I've listed it at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/proofreading#Requests_for_copy-editing_assistance. Rlevse 12:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but really I think that scouting is one of my blind spots. I have a lot of them: manga, anime, starwarstrek, dungeons, dragons, religion, dogs, spicy girls, sports, heraldry, and many besides; please don't take it personally. I wish you all the best with the article. -- Hoary 14:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, just asking.Rlevse 14:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Re:Invasion of the birdbrains
That would be great. Thanks. --Ann Stouter 08:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! --Ann Stouter 08:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Brian Wood (rugby player)
I don't think an article is justified, the protocols require a player to have played one pro game to be notable. He doesn't seem to have done that or coached at a pro level either.GordyB 10:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. But if you think an article's not justified, you don't have to do anything: it will disappear unless anyone protests. -- Hoary 13:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Onefortyone and Nick Adams
141 is on a roll; see the titillating state of the article Nick Adams, its history from late April (not helped by 141's chronic aversion to edit summaries), and Talk:Nick Adams, in which the fearless shedder of light in the darkest places expostulates: Do you really think that this material isn't encyclopedic? The private life and personal relationships are certainly important parts of a celebrity's history and must therefore be included in a biography etc etc. -- Hoary 05:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- *sigh* Yes, he's up to his usual insertion of Elvis homosexuality factoids again, with the funny collages of references to appear to make it tenable. I'm not quite sure what to do, because I have advised him on many occasions to moderate his behaviour; but it seems his tenacity is unmatchable, and thus I fear I shall have to implement greater stricture on him. I am considering invoking the ArbCom remedy, stating that the ban will apply to all Elvis-related articles. If he subsequently keeps at it, I am assuming he can be blocked for ignoring the ArbCom ruling. I am sorry that my efforts to mentor him appear not to have led to a satisfactory conclusion. (p.s. I am not going to edit the article as it stands, as that could possibly be construed as a conflict-of-interest should I invoke the remedy.) All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Tell me if this fits the bill adequately. Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Gabriel Fahrenheit
(You wrote)
Hello. I've written a further comment about Gabriel Fahrenheit at User talk:Chimichunga333; please take a look at it. -- Hoary 23:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please read my reply at Chimichunga333. I'd like to go along with your final decission in this matter. I trust your judgement and have no personal attachment to the insert. --Poeticbent talk 03:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for trusting my judgment rather more than I do. I've tentatively reverted the whole addition -- not just the bit attributed to Giunta but the whole lot. See the article's discussion page. I hope the editor explains, whereupon something can be done with the addition. I'm sorry that you may have wasted your time in working on it. -- Hoary 03:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hiroh Kikai
(You wrote)
On 26 October, 2006, Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Misplaced Pages notice board was updated with a question about the article Hiroh Kikai, which created and substantially expanded. If you, Poeticbent, can help with the small Polish-language element within that article, please do so wherever seems most appropriate. |
--
Hoary 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Did you know...
- ...that I once asked a question about Polish here but nobody answered it, even though I asked it ever so politely?
I love how you composed your question (above) in Wiki language. We do need a sense of humor around here, that’s for sure :-). The essay you asked about was written by Marta Newelska for the online journal called “Japonica Creativa” which belongs to the student forum of the University of Adam Mickiewicz in Poznań, department of Neophilology Japanese graduate studies program. The article written by Newelska talks about the exhibit of work by Hiroh Kikai entitled “Persona” and presented at the Gallery Zamek (the Castle) in Poznań from February 7 to March 3, 2005. The introduction to the show was written by dr Wiesław Rządek, who explained that the photographs on display were taken at Sensoji temple in a somewhat rundown neighborhood of Asakusa in Tokyo over the course of a decade, where Kikai lived for 30 years.
The second reference talks about an opening of a second show of Hiroh Kikai's work by the same title and in the same city of Poznań simultaneously at the Gallery PF, on February 8, 2005. On display were the series of photographs of pilgrims against the walls of Sensoji temple, taken on the same street of Asakusa district over the course of 30 years. In a way, it was also a retrospective of Kikai’s work. – Please don’t hesitate to ask if there’s anything else I can do and sorry for having to wait for so long. --Poeticbent talk 05:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sheesh, and it was all done in order that the result would blend in with your page . . Oh well, that doesn't matter at all, because I actually got the info that I was hoping for. I'm now so happy in a Polish kind of way that I'm in a mood to load up my Ami 66 with a roll of Fuji Presto and go out and capture the world. (Oh, no, hang on: There's still a roll in my Mine. So maybe next week.) Thank you thank you! -- Hoary 07:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I love your sense of humor, and I love your reference to Ami 66 ”in a Polish kind of way”. You’re pulling my leg, right? Actually, your template blended in with my Talk page so well the illusion was almost scary. What if everybody wants to talk like this? You wouldn’t like that, would you? I’ll be happy to help you with anything Polish (or not) if needed. And please, do take care. --Poeticbent talk 08:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I pull your leg not: I have an Ami 66 lying within two metres of where I now type, and it seems to scream "Feed me! Feed me!" With film, that is; not the other stuff. ¶ What if everybody wants to talk like this? Well, er, I wasn't expecting the Kantian Inquisition. What can I say. ¶ I’ll be happy to help you with anything Polish (or not) if needed. Now ya talking. I was about to invite you to look through Category:Polish photographers but then it occurred to me that I should first do so myself. So I did (just now, in a bit of a rush), and while I found three or four good articles and a couple of poor articles on people who seemed to deserve better ones, I also saw some pretty screwy stuff. Barbara Anna Czartoryska, for example, looks like simple vanity (I prodded it), but Andrzej Łuczak and the like seem little better. You might look through the lot if this subject interests you at all (as it should!). -- Hoary 08:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC) ..... PS more concretely, there are also inscrutable (to me) Polish-language external links from Kęstutis Stoškus; any explanation for any of these would be most welcome too. -- Hoary 10:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Katerina Jebb
The author's response does look like he/she was WP:BITtEn. The option to remove as G7 is definitely there, but perhaps some words of clarification/explanation on the author's talkpage to explain your intentions and looking how to head on from there might be a better step to take. If his/her response is that he/she still for deletion, then just respect his/her wishes. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 12:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Admin
Hi Hoary! I would like to nominate you for adminship, is it ok for you? Snowolf CON - 14:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well . . . ah . . . I hardly know what to say, erm . . . let me sleep on that. -- Hoary 15:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I second the nomination.;~) Pinkville 16:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah . . . :o) - Mailer Diablo 17:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Very strange: I'm sure I've checked... I must have done an error while checking. Never mind and happy editing, Snowolf CON - 17:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- MD, thanks for reminding me. When Snowolf kindly made the original suggestion, it had an odd sound to it, almost a kind of familiarity. I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was; now I know. Snowolf; thank you for the suggestion, and I'm happy for you that your (most unexpected) dream has already come true. -- Hoary 22:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- You come across as too sane to have the bit, don'tcha see? d:-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- On reflection, I think it's very simple: People (including myself) don't notice I'm wielding the mop because I don't fling it around enough. All I need to do is delete a lot more articles and block a lot more users. Then nobody will think I'm slacking. -- Hoary 23:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hehehe! How about destroying admin backlogs for a start? =D - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- On reflection, I think it's very simple: People (including myself) don't notice I'm wielding the mop because I don't fling it around enough. All I need to do is delete a lot more articles and block a lot more users. Then nobody will think I'm slacking. -- Hoary 23:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- What, me worry? Oh, all right.
- Jeez, what a mess. I looked at requests for unblocking. I read a few which could be summarized as "OK, OK, I admit it: I behaved like a dickhead. But I'm a nice guy. Promise!" None looked credible; I wanted to say "Uh huh. So prove it then. Name an article, any artice, to which you want to make a substantial, intelligent, verifiable (well sourced) addition; and make that addition right here on your own talk page. If I agree that it's good, I'll unblock you. However, I'll keep looking at your contributions list: if I see anything tacky, I'll block you for twice as long as you're blocked now and I'll make sure you stay blocked. Got that?" But I had a hunch that would contravene all sorts of policies that I can't be bothered to read. So instead I actually unblocked somebody (breaking a rule by not consulting with the admin who'd blocked him). Whew, that was thrilling! One chore done, only sixty two zillion more to do. -- Hoary 14:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
re User:Man in a skirt
No, fine. I probably shouldn't have blocked him in the first place, I guess. Herostratus 14:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Elvis Presley and other things
Hello. I was wondering if you were still editing the Elvis page? Has a checkuser ever been done on 141 (onefortone) before per the anonymous users who keep posting ridiculous remarks over the course of the last year and more as possible sockpuppets? Further, I'd welcome any input on improvements there after my revision of format. Thanks. --Northmeister 17:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which
Would you care to proofread? --Poeticbent talk 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)