Hi, in another vein altogether... Would you mind having a look at this article and especially the discussion that has started on its Talk page? Since you have a grounded perspective (as it were) on the issue of naming conventions I think we could benefit by your thoughts on whether this article ought to be moved back to "Ilham Aliyev". In any event, having an administrator who is aware of possible brewing trouble could be helpful later on. Thanks! Pinkville 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I had a feeling you would go the way you did on this article - and I'm still glad to have your input. Thanks for joining the discussion. Pinkville 03:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but I'm not satisfied with what I wrote, which I wrote when too sleepy. One good thing is that the argument is an intelligent one (or anyway was before I came along and mucked it up; I haven't looked at it since): I hope it continues that way, and I may return to it if I can sort out my own ideas first. -- Hoary 03:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a borderline case, I believe... which makes it more interesting than usual. You've mucked nothing. Pinkville 04:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, unlike the Case of the King, this one has been resolved. Hope you can keep your head above water - and thanks again for the Kikai offer, accepted with pleasure. Pinkville 03:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Stephanie Adams
Left a post for you, I've done ALOT of research on this chick, she has NO pr people here , and never has, read the comment on her talk page that was "mysteriously" reverted. I have talked to her on the phone as she had a tv blaring and was drinking and talking to Home boys in the background.
She wasnt even the playmate of the month, just a lady in playboy, the rest of the stuff about her has been CREATED by her to make her APPEAR something she is not. READ all of her comment archive, she has been proven to have MANY sock puppets, and was eventually canned from Wiki.
This is a lady who claims to make 70 million a year.
Yes, yes Im sure she does.
/sarcasm ...added at 07:55, 27 May 2006 by 65.184.17.216
If the above is true, you clearly have hugely more interest in Stephanie Adams than I do.
You make one surprising claim: that Adams wasn't a playmate of the month. This is incompatible with what's written on this article. That's very surprising, as that's the kind of article (dealing as it does with commercialized softcore porn) that we can expect to have been edited assiduously. Please either (a) explain this misunderstanding on the talk page of that article or (b) retract your claim.
Also, please sign your comments. This is easy: "~~~~". Thanks. -- Hoary 08:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
It is evident that 65.184.17.216 has zippo credibility and has an established track record for harrassing other users, making false claims to be friends with Jimbo, making idle threats of being able to ban other users AND admins. At what point does WikiPedia find permabanning an IP the only responsible thing to do? Stephanie Adams, by the way, was undoubtedly a Playmate of the Month from Nov. 1992. Cumberbund 20:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm well aware that the IP has made various bizarre statements about other users (Wales included). I haven't encouraged these but I have mostly ignored them. I also have good reason to think that Adams was a playmate, and indeed the IP confirmed this on the talk page of that article shortly after denying it here. These oddities aside, I haven't been worried by what I've noticed of the conduct of this IP. Amid all the bluster, he has (rather windily) made an interesting point: that Adams's "books" aren't actually books. I've tried to investigate this claim, that's all. -- Hoary 23:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Eugene Richards
No problem with POV on talk pages. So if you have the passion, why don't you start the article with a stub at least and then the name can go on the name space page of photographers? Doc 14:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I am wondering if it is time to invoke this remedy. What do you think? Jkelly 01:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It was stuff like this. But there now seems to be some sort of collaboration being hammered out on the Talk page, so I'm less inclined to fuss now. Jkelly 03:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, thanks... that was terrible. Jkelly 22:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hoary, you made a great point about the opening to the Elvis article. I'd like to see your version of last we put together. I'm using the Louis Armstrong article as a model, and would like to see this page become a candidate for a featured article in August around his passing anniversary; if we can hammer out an acceptable article in length and content - like the Armstrong one. Hopefully Onefortyone will collaborate with this effort, I've been trying to get him to do this all along, and requested page protection until we hammer out the best article - section by section. The AOL user is quite annoying - not sure why he doesn't get an user account and contribute rather than disrupt. I welcome any criticism of myself, as I might have become a little abrasive with Onefortyone after reading his past history with celebrity pages; and any criticism of my edits - the most important task in my book, is to get a NPOV, balanced encyclopedic article done, that can be featured. --Northmeister 02:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think Onefortyone isn't interested in working straight, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems he works in circles and in a confusing manner - per the opening where he wrote a pretty good one, I then improved the ending a bit, you offered comment on that, I agreed that it needed work (take out icon, etc.) he then eradicates his good version down to nothing as somehow all that information was wrong because it is "fan stuff." I concur with your comments about his music style in the opening or music...as mentioned above, if you take the last good version I edited on the talk page and edit it yourself to include some material on the music, replace icon with better wording, then we can have a good opening. I proposed a first section as well, that I would welcome input on improvement to. Thanks. --Northmeister 03:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
May I ask you to include the first paragraphs from the 'Sandbox' in the Elvis Presley article (see [5]), as there seems to be a consensus concerning these passages now. Thank you. Further, I am of the opinion that the "Allegations of racism" section should not be removed, as there are other peer-reviewed studies deeling with this topic. See, for instance, [6]. What do you think? Onefortyone 13:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is no longer protected, so you can proceed -- but please keep a sense of perspective and provide sources for what you write. Hoary 07:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi User Hoary. Since unprotecting the Elvis Presley a number of questionable comments have slipped in from allegations of homosexuality (which were debunked numerous times in the discussion forum) to allegations of incest. These claims are all from the same User time and time again and really do diminish the article. I believe the page should be protected again. Thanks. Lochdale
Very interesting citation regarding Dee Presley. That said, I'm starting to lose interest and patience with the Presley page. I'm learning more about the man then I ever cared to know. This is just an out and out hijack of a page by one user and one user only. Is there anything that can be done or is this going to be a never-ending battle? --Lochdale 16:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, there is indeed something that can be done. Better still, it has just now been done. -- Hoary 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Would you mind chiming in at User talk:NicholasTurnbull? Specifically, there seems to be some concern about whether there was any poorly-sourced material added. Jkelly 03:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, but it will have a wait a few hours: the demands of the real world beckon. -- Hoary 05:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Done (and in an appropriately sickly green). -- Hoary 11:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Elvis Presley: movies section
May I ask you to have a look at the Elvis Presley article and related pages. User:Northmeister has started an edit war concerning the movies section. He has repeatedly deleted material which is well sourced. This is not acceptable. See [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], etc. Onefortyone 21:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think he could justifiably claim that the material he deleted is horribly verbose. Still, let's argue over this on the article's talk page. Meanwhile, I've locked the article (again). -- Hoary 09:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Gay Presley (or not)
Hi Hoary, I noticed that your an administrator and also edit the elvis presley article frequency, so I was wondering if i could ask you a question. I'm not a mega-fan of presley, but when I came across this page i noticed that it was particlary biased toward the negative aspects including some bizarre notions of homosexuality and incest. I left some comments on the 'male friendships' section of the discussion, but there is a user that is determined that this fringe agenda supported by a few secondary sources stay (excluding the majority of sources that disaggree in the process). Surely this is a breach of wikipedia's NPOV policy isn't it? Someone in the discussion also mentioned that this user is on probation for this very matter, I'm not sure how it works but is there a reason why it isn't enforced? Thanks.--58.169.8.139 06:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I too think that Presley deserves a fair article just as much as the next (dead) guy. My problem is that I'm even less of a fan than I suspect you are, and have little appetite for reading about him, let alone paying money for the books I don't possess (and I don't possess any). There seem to be two processes going on here. In one, a particular long-time contributor who has some obsession with "personal relationships" in general and actual or imagined homosexuality among 50s Hollywood stars in particular is keen to introduce all this stuff. Yes, he (she) was banned earlier; he (she) seems to be much more scrupulous now (though just as obsessed). In another, an IP seems very keen on Michael Jackson and somehow sees Presley as some sort of obstacle to world recognition of the greatness of Jackson. (Teenage level thinking here.) He/she is repetitive but lazy. ¶ Let's look at the former. You say: you are only including sources whose content that you happen to agree with.... What I see here are secondary sources that support a fringe agenda with an exclusion of the vast majority of sources (including many primary ones) that disagree with this. You may very well be right; I don't know, as I'm not familiar with the literature. What are these sources that disagree with the assertion that Presley was gay? Please name them, in the talk page. ¶ If the conflict heats up again, the article will be semi-protected. When that happens, you won't be able to edit the page. This is a good reason for you to get and start using a username. -- Hoary 07:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hoary. Noted my edits to the sections on Male Friendships in the Presley article. I'm a little concerned, however, that there needs to be a direct refutation that Presley was not gay. He was married and had open affairs with numerous women. He is arguably the most documented entertainer in human history yet there is scant evidence (if any) to suggest that he were gay. Other than a Playboy article written long-after his death quoting someone who was not intimate with Presley inner-circle there is nothing there. It seems a little harsh to cite sources proving he wasn't gay other than pointing out the obvious sources like Guralnik who make no mention of it. Lochdale
Bad mood
Sorry I put you in a bad mood. Could you please tell me why? --Gnewf 06:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Mentmore
If you want a ref:
Sotheby, Parke, Bernet & Co. Mentmore, Vols I - V. London 1977.
Clarke R & R. Mentmore Catalogue. Edinburgh 1884. Privatly Published.
Molinier, Emile. Le Mobiier Francais du XVII et fu XVIII Siecle. Paris
Good article nomination reminder
Hi, thanks for reviewing articles in the WP:GA project. However, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder for you to 'finish the job' when passing or failing a nominee. It appeared that you failed Eevee (legitimately), but did not change the template from GAnominee to failedGA, or remove it from the nomination list. I went ahead and did it, so no worries, but I wanted to leave you a reminder for the future. Make sure everything on the "Passed" or "Failed" list gets done when you review an article, it can be hard to identify 'orphans' who've only had part of the process completed. Thanks for your help. Phidauex 16:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Erm . . . actually I did change the template and I took it out of the nomination list too. I see that you've already read and responded to what I wrote here. Perhaps what I wrote was poorly expressed: I mentersay that I was surprised that my comment was simply ignored. (Perhaps I should be grateful that the Eevee fans didn't go one further and simply delete my comment.)
Ok... My bad! They just renominated it so fast that it looked like you hadn't removed it from the list. I've recently had to remind a few new reviewers about removing things from the list, and I wrongly put you into that category. I'm getting a little annoyed by the editors who feel like they should just nominate something over and over and over, until they hit a lenient reviewer who'll just pass them without reading the comments... Phidauex 15:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a bit like eBay, isn't it? Think of some product area in which you're vaguely interested, and look among it for an item that, though written up with unusual care, seems absurdly overpriced. Come back later. You'll see, it will keep coming back, week after week, until some damn fool appreciative connoisseur buys it. ¶ Since you're interested in Japan -- and might have had today's fill of purportedly good articles (which seem to me rather to overrepresent juvenilia) -- here's another minor diversion for you. ¶ Got hold of a copy of the big photo book yet? -- Hoary 15:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I know enough about Japanese script to know that I don't know anything about Japanese script. I thought the English language was a convoluted system, until I started learning Japanese... I haven't been able to find a copy of the Kikai book yet, it's not as easy as I had hoped it would be. Phidauex 20:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
References have been altered as per your request, though dividing up the Coleman bio will take a lot of time. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! You've given me a lot to work on, but I'm sure that when I'm finished, the article will look a million bucks. And it's all doable. Thanks again ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 04:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
And now, I've adressed your points, answered some questions, and there's only one point that will be a real hiccup.
You're doing good work. Well done. However, I think you're rushing. For example, as an illustration of Olivier's early rise, you say what he was doing over a decade after he started, which is after the Shakespearean breakthrough described in the following paragraph. ¶ There's no rush. If somebody (me) posts a dozen (?) questions or objections on the talk page, there's no obligation to respond to them the next day. Take your time; get it right. ¶ Incidentally, here's another question for you. We're all familiar with the stern paper who thwarts his son's dramatic ambitions. (A ghastly example of this stereotype is in the well-acted but dreadful film Dead Poets Society.) In this article, though, you first say that paper was a stern sort of person, and then, without explanation, say it was he who decided that his son would be an actor. This seems remarkable. ¶ And how about the unusual surname? (Is it Huguenot?) -- Hoary 06:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Re:GRDT
Thanks for your help on GDRT. I thought of changing the text when I added it to my user page, but I figured only those with Windows or a Mac would need help knowing where to put it (and I don't know where it should go on a mac). I really doubt a Linux, Unix, GNU, or other OS user will need help putting it in the right place ;) — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll probably provide a link. A lot of people are computer-illiterate, though, so a note about what to do with the file is probably good. Do you think I should just say "your fonts folder" and then specify that for windows it's C:\Windows\Fonts\? The vowels are educated guesses. I'll see if I can find a way to link to an article that explains reconstruction, but as far as I know, no such article exists yet. Regarding footnotes, I always put them after the period. Why, are there some before? If so, I'll fix that. A couple are in the middle of a sentence because it's referencing a specific part (while another reference in the sentence references the other part). Again, thanks for your help. The article is now a GA :). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Edits to Elvis Presley Article
Hi. I thought I had noted my changes in the talk/discussion page. My apologies if I did not. I had mentioned the Greenwood removal several times in the Male Friendships section of the discussion page. Will be more careful in the future. --Lochdale 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Would you please reinclude the "Nick Adams stuff" in the article. Here are some more quotes from Guralnick's book, Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, relating to the time when the close friendship between Nick Adams and Elvis Presley began (p.339-340):
"Nick didn't have anything better to do, so he was going to come to Tupelo ... Elvis was looking forward to showing him Memphis for the first time. They flew into Memphis on Saturday, September 22, and went out to the fair briefly that night. On Monday they visited Humes, where Elvis introduced Nick to his old homeroom teacher, Miss Scrivener... They visited the Tiplers at Crown Electric, too, and Nick put his feet up on Mr. Tipler's desk while Elvis explained, said his former employer, "how he had his money arranged so he wouldn't get it all at one time." They even went by Dixie's house one afternoon, and she told Elvis she was getting married, and he congratulated her and wished her well. On Wednesday they left for Tupelo around noon." etc. etc.
p.343:
"Elvis and Nick had returned to Hollywood by the weekend..."
Does this sound as if Guralnik only notes "that they were friends but nothing more", as Lochdale has falsely claimed? Of course not! Such a close friendship must be mentioned in the article, as it is part of Elvis's personal life. Onefortyone 02:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
No I'm not going to reinclude it. Incidentally, Adams is already mentioned in the article in the state in which I viewed it mere seconds ago. -- Hoary 03:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Am I missing something? Does Guralnik say they were lovers? He doesn't. Doesn't even allude to it. Stop trying to push your fringe agenda in an encyclopedia. --Lochdale 04:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Hoary: Firstly, I'd like to thank you very much for providing your detailed explanation on what happened about this whole mess; along with comments made by Jkelly, Onefortyone himself, and Lochdale, I've been able to piece together an adequate idea of the situation. As I've told Onefortyone, I think your agreement with Jkelly's remedy was correct, and a hiatus from editing the article will, I feel, be best for all concerned including the user. I've written Onefortyone an analysis in response to his request that I look into the situation, here (diff); I would greatly appreciate your opinion on what I have written here, at your convenience. Regarding your question about what to do with regards to this user, it isn't necessary for you to have to debate any longer with him - just direct him to me, should he continue to desire an answer, as I've made it my duty to ensure that he is able to work on Wikipedia productively from now on as his mentor. There is another issue I would like to ask you about, though, and that is User:Lochdale; this user appears to be fixatedly editing Elvis Presley, and as per arbcom precedent (such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair) users fixatedly editing may be banned from an article, and since Onefortyone was banned for similar behaviour I wonder if perhaps it might be a good idea to ban this user from the article too. Let me know what you think. Once again, thank you very much; peace, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I appreciate your comments I do take a little umbrage at the notion that my account was created solely to edit the Presley page. To be sure I am a novice user so that may offer some explanation for my clumsy editing methodologies. However, I would ask you to consider that I tended only to edit those claims that had no real basis in reality. Put another way, I did not edit sections dealing with Presley's philandering or his obvious drug abuse/addiction. I would further note that the Presley page differs extensively from other biographies on rock musicians given the number of quotes and secondary sources attributable to the article. This suggests that the article has basically been hijacked. I do not believe any of my comment have been so egregious that they are deserving of a ban. Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated particularly as to how I can best conduct myself on a going forward basis. --Lochdale 05:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The Presley page looks an awful lot better. I have not been involved in much of the editing lately as I wanted to take a 'wait and see' approach. That said, the article has been cleaned up and it looks similar to other Wiki articles on musicians and actors. That can only be a good thing. Not sure what two Elvis books you picked up but both Guralnik books are top class. The second book, Careless Love, is a tough read as you see Presley devolve into a bloated junkie. --Lochdale 17:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that it's better. It's off my watchlist and I don't intend to look at it till either somebody asks me to do so or I have good reason to think that my input would be very beneficial. Yes, I read the first book by Guralnick, and I'm now reading Nash's "Mafia" book. Presley was certainly very odd in several ways, but not at all as 141 has been so keen to suggest. -- Hoary 22:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I've never read Nash's book but I have read several others regarding the 'Memphis Mafia' and Presley in the 70's. He was certainly a strange guy who seemed to live in his own world. While his trip to see Nixon is funny it's also extremely bizarre that he actually thought he could just drop in to see the POTUS. Let me know how you like Nash's book. That all said, unfortunately this is all going to start again as soon as 141's ban ends.--Lochdale 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
More on Presley
Thanks for your response. I was a little surprised that you would be lumped in with me! Your edits tend to be very thoughtful and logical. I think Guralnik is widely regarding as the best Presley biographer. I'm a big fan of his works so I'm sorry if my comments suggested otherwise. The point I was trying to me (poorly it seems) is that it's unfair to take excellent secondary sources like Guralnik's and then use it to support other less reputable sources. I would be very comfortable using Guralnik as a major source for the article (he is very critcal of Presley so it's not a puff piece at all. He basically calls him a junkie in the second book). Perhaps I can work on some edits and send them to you before making any chances? All the best. --Lochdale 16:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If you have a moment, check out the Talk page and my 'My Talk' page for an extremely detailed discussion on Presley and racism. Truly eyeopening though I can't tell who wrote it. --I'm reading Betrands article and I think it is fair to say that is (being chartible) mischarecterized in the current article. In addition, I do think we can remove a number of quotes particulary those that appear to be very selective. For example, in the Male Friendships section we have a reference from Guralnik's book to Presley hanging around Nick Adams yet Guralnik has considerablely more references to Bill Black, Cliff Cleaves, George Klein (who was in hollywood with Presley) etc. etc. Lochdale 22:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Edit Summaries- I must confess, I believe I confused the Talk Page with edit summaries. My error entirely!--Lochdale 05:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I think it goes to the problem of trying to include each and every secondary source on a popular figure. Put another way, with certain cultural figures such as Lennon, Presley, Dylan etc. I think it's possible to find a secondary source that you can make say whatever you want. It works on the basis that all sources are equally credible even if they are not. Anyhoo, somewhat amusing that you are being considered 'part of the problem' with your edits on the Dylan page. All I could add is that I saw him last year in Chicago and he brought his Oscar with him :). --Lochdale 05:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Concerning my edit on Paul the greatest's talk page
I altered the comment I left there as it sounded a bit uncivil. I was referring to the fact that he, judging by his mention of Truthiness on his user page, was one of the many new users who have been vandalising Wikipedia at Stephen Colbert's prompting. I was in a bit of a rage when I said that because there have been thousonds of vandalising edits since the episode of the Colbert Report last night mocked Wikipedia and then encouraged viewers to vandalise it. Thanks for checking me there though, the last thing I need to do is respond to trolls in anger. Finite 01:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Passenger vehicles in the US
Hi, I have updated the intro to the Passenger vehicles in the United States article and was wondering whether or not you had anymore concern regarding this article's GA nominee status. I would appreciate your input. Thank you. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm still puzzled by two things.
First, spuriously precise statistics. The number of cars aside, we read: Considering the population in the United States of 293,655,404 in the year 2004 -- but this is obviously nuts, as (even if we make the most implausible assumption that the US population can be counted to the nearest person) the population would presumably have remained at that point for a period of mere seconds during 2004.
Secondly, the percentage of the article that's devoted to brands ("marques") of car. Why is this so important? -- Hoary 07:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand the popultion changes constantly... so how about I add "Considering that the population in the United States was 293,655,404 during the 2004 economic survey."
We have the marque section becuase cars in the US often tend to be different than cars in other parts of the world (Buick, Lincoln, Cadillac, Pontiac, Chevrolet, Mercury, etc... are all really only sold in the US). The other reason is to discuss the car industry in the US, who makes car in the US. I hope this addresses your concerns. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with you about both issues, but it seems unfair just to clamp "on hold" on the article till you agree with me; I've therefore removed that flag and I'll let some other person decide for him or herself. -- Hoary 06:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. What happened is that this template unwittingly put the entire AfD's day in the backlog category. In any case, don't worry about it, I'll clean up the entire mess later. It's not that difficult. -Cheers, Mailer Diablo 10:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Hoary: I saw your note on my userpage saying that you will take a hiatus from editing the dreaded Elvis Presley article; thank you so much for going the extra mile towards compromise, I really am most grateful to you for your willingness to cease the continual dispute, as I am for your assistance in this matter to date. I am also sorry that you had to get caught up in this ugly mess - "of all the articles, in all the categories in all of Wikipedia", to paraphrase Bogart - and hope you might be able to find something a little less troublesome to edit. Meanwhile, I shall try to keep Onefortyone out of trouble, and concentrate on this Board candidacy. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. The odd thing is that, goaded by remarks about my ignorance of Presley, I'd taken the trouble to go to the library and borrow an excellent book about the first part of his life and career, which I finished reading just this morning. This was the first book I'd ever read about him; before, he was a blank to me (though of course I vaguely knew some of his songs); now he's much more interesting to me than he was just last week. But plenty of people are just as qualified as I to right the oddities, imbalances and deficiencies in the article; let them get to it. Recently most of my wikiefforts have been in a special-interest website that could be thought of as a minor supplement to WP; within WP I hope to spend more time on this. ¶ I haven't kept up to date with even the publicly visible parts of the disagreements to which you and other trustee candidates allude; but I like what I've seen in your own statements (not least Internet advertisements are intrinsically odious). Also, as I quickly look at the list of your seven rivals, I see one name I know and trust (with some reservations), two names that are familiar but don't mean much to me, three names that are entirely new to me, and, most worryingly, one name that rings several very loud alarm bells. Best of luck with it, but don't let it distract you too much from what you're doing at Sussex. -- Hoary 06:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
User:WILLIAM DAKOTA
Do you think User:WILLIAM DAKOTA is a a reincarnation of banned user User:Ted Wilkes? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not! The pages they edit do show a considerable overlap; the methods of editing, etc etc are about as different as can be imagined. For one thing, Dakota (who repeatedly claims to be, and for all I know is, "Bill Dakota" the editor of Hollywood scandal sheets) is keen to introduce as much salacious tittle-tattle as possible; TW was in a war to delete any such garbage unless it was shown to be well sourced. -- Hoary 01:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I misunderstood Ted Wilkes's participation. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
silly, very silly
Hi there, I noticed on the new users' log that you blocked User:Unblokhim. I suspect User:U-cant-block-me is the same person.
Regards, — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 07:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find any edits by that second user. -- Hoary 08:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Neither did I, I just found his name on the log. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 22:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Oooooh, yeah, I remember that thread. :) Funny running into you with those couple sockvandals, tonight. Since that post, I think I've only drifted closer and closer to your camp. There comes a point where it's clear that many vandals are acting out for attention, and you're right: we should strive to avoid encouraging that. Luna Santin 11:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Laurence, Toby... and this new guy!
OK, when it comes to Shakespeare, I'm quite ignorant. This has now been proven beyond doubt. :-D Thanks for your advice - the Olivier article is not my pet project at the moment and I often give it more than a day's rest, sometimes as much as a week, but point taken. This chap is fascinating. Maybe Olivier was just a no-talent hack after all! Rossrs 14:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for passing this article for GA, and for all the kind comments. It's greatly appreciated. I'm sorry if this is a bit belated, but I've been on holiday for the last three weeks. When I left the article was still on the list, so I handed it over to Makemi's loving care. Thanks again. Best, Moreschi 19:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that AfD made me really angry. Blatant rigging of the process must not be tolerated!! Hopefully the closing admin will have even 51 per cent of a brain. Anyway, I voted delete, and that's just about me finished for the night. I generally have another good long editing run in the morning, when there's no one around and I get a free run of the place. No edit conflicts! Anyway, it's great to get acquainted with you.
And BTW, I loathe Ribena, and I'm getting just a little old for the nauseous stuff.
Ever heard of elderflower cordial? Cheers, Moreschi 21:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Please save me from myself! Recently, sfter someone started an article called "Andre Disdéri" after I had started a stub called "André-Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri" it was agreed to merge the two articles, but using one of the preferred versions of Disdéri's name (i.e. not "André Disdéri", but probably "André-Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri"). In the meantime, another editor came along and merged the articles under the name "André Disdéri" (the least common, least formal and least recognised version of the name), so I tried to move the merged article to "André-Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri"... and the nightmare began. I accidentally left out the accent in "Disdéri" and further attempts to correct the matter only seem doomed to make it worse! Can you help?! Once again, the final merged article should be titled, "André-Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri". Thanks. Pinkville 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It may be helpful, I suppose, if I include the link to the existing article (the one which must be moved), currently under the title, Andre-Adolphe-Eugene Disdéri. Pinkville 17:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Only the Good Lawrd can save you from yourself, my son (or daughter). But as an interim measure I have directed the administrative fly-swatter at André-Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri, in order to have Andre-Adolphe-Eugene Disdéri move and direct there.
I think everything's where it should be, but battles with unfamiliar Linux distros and misbehaving hardware, as well as timewasting transplant surgery, have exhausted me a little. Let me know if any more needs to be done.
Thanks very much for cleaning up my mess!
I enjoyed both versions of Linza, esq., but particularly the older one. We will soon be able to start a List including Linza and Robert Voltaire, but I can't imagine what the title would be... Maybe: List of ostensible photographers whose height and good looks have been acknowledged by others?
Transplant surgery??!! Pinkville 01:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The transplant surgery: just a motherboard (plus CPU and RAM), and a DVD drive. I thought that one vital connector didn't fit, so spent a couple of hours going to an electronics souk, buying the necessary adapter, and bringing it back -- and then I realized that I'd been looking at the wrong connector, so all had been well from the start. Whaddawastatime.
Kubuntu is very swish; most impressive. -- Hoary 03:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Computerjoe's talk 13:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The main thrust of my comment was that this edit was moronic and done by somebody who is, or acts as, a retard. (It now occurs to me that the retardation may have been short-term and alcoholically induced.) My list of contributions will, I think, show you that I do not make such comments lightly. While I think I stay cool in reaction to such edits, you may judge this for yourself. Come to think of it, a ban would come at a most convenient time.
Let's forget these nincompoops; they don't merit the attention paid to them. (NB that's interpretable as another personal attack, if you're so inclined.) This is a very depressing week, with the departure, only temporary I hope, of the inimitable Giano. I find (actually he led me to) one bright spot: this. -- Hoary 14:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Another option would be to use a standard vandalism warning message (such as ((test)), ((test2)), ((test3)) or ((test4)). It is also noting, that as this is an AOL it is very unlikely the intended user will receive your message, so you will come off uncivil to whichever AOL user does receive it. (not that I'm an AOL fan)
Also, I have attempted to switch to Linux a couple of times, but I failed miserably on both occasions. Computerjoe's talk 16:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
silly, very silly
Hi there, I noticed on the new users' log that you blocked User:Unblokhim. I suspect User:U-cant-block-me is the same person.
Regards, — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 07:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find any edits by that second user. -- Hoary 08:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Neither did I, I just found his name on the log. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 22:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Oooooh, yeah, I remember that thread. :) Funny running into you with those couple sockvandals, tonight. Since that post, I think I've only drifted closer and closer to your camp. There comes a point where it's clear that many vandals are acting out for attention, and you're right: we should strive to avoid encouraging that. Luna Santin 11:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Laurence, Toby... and this new guy!
OK, when it comes to Shakespeare, I'm quite ignorant. This has now been proven beyond doubt. :-D Thanks for your advice - the Olivier article is not my pet project at the moment and I often give it more than a day's rest, sometimes as much as a week, but point taken. This chap is fascinating. Maybe Olivier was just a no-talent hack after all! Rossrs 14:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for passing this article for GA, and for all the kind comments. It's greatly appreciated. I'm sorry if this is a bit belated, but I've been on holiday for the last three weeks. When I left the article was still on the list, so I handed it over to Makemi's loving care. Thanks again. Best, Moreschi 19:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that AfD made me really angry. Blatant rigging of the process must not be tolerated!! Hopefully the closing admin will have even 51 per cent of a brain. Anyway, I voted delete, and that's just about me finished for the night. I generally have another good long editing run in the morning, when there's no one around and I get a free run of the place. No edit conflicts! Anyway, it's great to get acquainted with you.
And BTW, I loathe Ribena, and I'm getting just a little old for the nauseous stuff.
Ever heard of elderflower cordial? Cheers, Moreschi 21:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Please save me from myself! Recently, sfter someone started an article called "Andre Disdéri" after I had started a stub called "André-Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri" it was agreed to merge the two articles, but using one of the preferred versions of Disdéri's name (i.e. not "André Disdéri", but probably "André-Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri"). In the meantime, another editor came along and merged the articles under the name "André Disdéri" (the least common, least formal and least recognised version of the name), so I tried to move the merged article to "André-Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri"... and the nightmare began. I accidentally left out the accent in "Disdéri" and further attempts to correct the matter only seem doomed to make it worse! Can you help?! Once again, the final merged article should be titled, "André-Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri". Thanks. Pinkville 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It may be helpful, I suppose, if I include the link to the existing article (the one which must be moved), currently under the title, Andre-Adolphe-Eugene Disdéri. Pinkville 17:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Only the Good Lawrd can save you from yourself, my son (or daughter). But as an interim measure I have directed the administrative fly-swatter at André-Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri, in order to have Andre-Adolphe-Eugene Disdéri move and direct there.
I think everything's where it should be, but battles with unfamiliar Linux distros and misbehaving hardware, as well as timewasting transplant surgery, have exhausted me a little. Let me know if any more needs to be done.
For light relief, enjoy Nicola Giacomo Aluigi Giuseppe Linza; and even better, this older version; I have a hunch that they won't be around much longer. -- Hoary 23:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for cleaning up my mess!
I enjoyed both versions of Linza, esq., but particularly the older one. We will soon be able to start a List including Linza and Robert Voltaire, but I can't imagine what the title would be... Maybe: List of ostensible photographers whose height and good looks have been acknowledged by others?
Transplant surgery??!! Pinkville 01:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The transplant surgery: just a motherboard (plus CPU and RAM), and a DVD drive. I thought that one vital connector didn't fit, so spent a couple of hours going to an electronics souk, buying the necessary adapter, and bringing it back -- and then I realized that I'd been looking at the wrong connector, so all had been well from the start. Whaddawastatime.
Kubuntu is very swish; most impressive. -- Hoary 03:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Computerjoe's talk 13:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The main thrust of my comment was that this edit was moronic and done by somebody who is, or acts as, a retard. (It now occurs to me that the retardation may have been short-term and alcoholically induced.) My list of contributions will, I think, show you that I do not make such comments lightly. While I think I stay cool in reaction to such edits, you may judge this for yourself. Come to think of it, a ban would come at a most convenient time.
Let's forget these nincompoops; they don't merit the attention paid to them. (NB that's interpretable as another personal attack, if you're so inclined.) This is a very depressing week, with the departure, only temporary I hope, of the inimitable Giano. I find (actually he led me to) one bright spot: this. -- Hoary 14:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Another option would be to use a standard vandalism warning message (such as ((test)), ((test2)), ((test3)) or ((test4)). It is also noting, that as this is an AOL it is very unlikely the intended user will receive your message, so you will come off uncivil to whichever AOL user does receive it. (not that I'm an AOL fan)
Also, I have attempted to switch to Linux a couple of times, but I failed miserably on both occasions. Computerjoe's talk 16:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back!
The days crawled by... Thanks again for Persona - fabulous! You might like to check out one or two new things if you have the time and are so inclined. Try Pierre Rossier and Uchida Kuichi (of which, more to come). Happy WPeeing. Pinkville 13:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Coo. The latter is promising, the former first-rate. Skip GA with that one and aim straight for FA, perhaps after another couple of weeks of thought. -- Hoary 23:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
After some more additions/changes, I've taken the dive and put Pierre Rossier up for FAC. So we'll see... Pinkville 03:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Ingelbert Lievaart
Hello. I've suggested that Ingelbert Lievaart should be deleted; you may disagree. Better, you might make the article more compelling. -- Hoary 10:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi and thanks, the article is far from complete, I am waiting for his Bio and credibility information, as he didn't want to create a vanity article. He is a fairly well known newspaper and music photographer here in London and the article will be more compelling as the week goees on. I am always amazed that people jump on my articles right away and don't realize they are in the early stages of being written. Maybe I will just compose them in Text editor and not post them until finished. I disagree with the delete, it will just take a week or so to finish. Any way I hardly have any links yet so few would find it, I was saving that for later. WayneRay 12:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)WayneRay
In view of your response, I've removed the template. I'll wait a week or so.
Yes, it's a good idea to compose articles to the point where they won't be problematic and then post them. You might make a subpage of your own user page and use that; you'll then be able to use markup (however, please don't add categories at this stage). Two tips for the article: show the relationship of the newspaper image to the photographer; be sure to present independent links verifying what you say about the man. -- Hoary 12:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe this!!!
Jimbo blanked the Linza-related AfDs as a courtesy blank. Can someone please explain to me why? If he (Linza) was the sockpuppeteer, does he even deserve a modicum of courtesy? Moreschi 10:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm unhappy about the blanking if only because the AfDs have considerable unintended entertainment value. But perhaps that's just it: our entertainment is resented. There's a pattern of blanking by J Wales of unintentionally amusing personal stuff (overweening vanity, blustery denials that obvious vanity is vanity, etc.). I think it's because certain people realize that they have made themselves figures of fun, and fielding their complaints about this, however misdirected, threatens to be, or is, a waste of time. I have a considerable degree of sympathy with this: whatever one may think of the top level of WP, it surely has worthier demands on its time than dealing with the bluster of the affronted. -- Hoary 10:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Agne's main thrust
I would love editors to come to articles and state "the references need to be improved" or "this fact needs to be cited". But Agne came to Metric expansion of space and stated, very simply, that the article violated a good article criterion (2b) when in fact the article did not violate the criterion taken at its face-value. What this amounts to, then, is a fly-by-night, seat-of-your-pants kind of evaluation of an article that really lacks the kind of rigor needed in order to properly evaluate whether or not the editor/admin in question is making reasonable critique or is just whining. I made comment of this at Wikipedia talk: Good articles... specifically that the way this particular group of people was going around "warning" that articles would be delisted was actually a statement that 1) the articles in question didn't live up to their subjective standard (which was different that the criterion they were posting) and 2) they were able to evaluate the articles on the fly, quickly determining that they were in violation of their standards. Basically what was going on was that these people were counting inline references in an article and expected a certain "density" in order for it to be safe. This kind of bean-counting doesn't really help Wikipedia, and we're having many problems with non-science editors insisting on inline references for common knowledge facts. All of these issues coalesced and when I realized that Agne was tagging many articles this way, I tried to express my dismay in as strong a fashion as I could. --ScienceApologist 12:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Pardon the preambulatory digression, but it's very often not a good idea hereabouts to express one's dismay in as strong as fashion as possible. Presumably what you really want to do is (of course after considering arguments and at least toying with the idea that others are right and you're wrong) to persuade people that you're right and they're wrong. Expressing dismay as strongly as possible is likely to raise hackles and be counterproductive. ¶ Yes, I agree that a simple demand for a greater number of "inline citations" (WP's fancy term for notes) is silly. I think I've read a remark by Agne distancing herself from such a notion, but I'm not going to look through all the past discussions to find it. ¶ [W]e're having many problems with non-science editors insisting on inline references for common knowledge facts. First off, outside the sadly small population of people who are in some way familiar with physics, these are not common-knowledge facts. (Within physics, of course they are.) You should and can indicate how what you're saying can be verified. Forget note-counting: Agne's main point about this article seems to be that there's not enough indication of what can be verified where, and it's pretty close to one that I made soon after I first encountered the article. My point seemed to go down fairly well, but nothing much was done about it. I'm connected (or, at this moment, disconnected) via modem this evening, another reason why I'm not going to look up who said exactly what and exactly when, but I think that for example I wondered some time ago how Eddington's book could have been pertinent and you explained in the talk page or elsewhere -- but no explanation was added within the article itself. Likewise, I believe that I suggested some time ago that the content in general (rather than particular sentences within it) could usefully be related to particular chapters of one or more books for the intelligent lay reader or the undergraduate; this hasn't been done either. (Earlier today I skimread some complaint by a physicist about such demands, I think saying (a) that real physicists don't concern themselves with mere textbooks and (b) that if they did name this or that textbook it would be unfair to the textbook's rivals. I don't buy that at all, as a large percentage of physicists must surely either have worked their way through textbooks in recent years or be inflicting textbooks on their own students; also, there's a big difference between a neutral but implicitly approving citation of a book on the one hand and spamming of it on the other.) ¶ Now, my own knowledge of post-Newtonian physics is limited to a casual reading of one pop science book titled either "Einstein's X and Poincaré's Y" or "Poincaré's X and Einstein's Y" where one or other of X and Y was "Clocks". Considering that I can't even remember the title of the book, you'll probably agree that I am not the person to edit this or any other theoretical physics article beyond perhaps fixing the occasional apostrophe. Over to you, or another physicist. -- Hoary 14:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm bluing some of the red links in the Rossier article, so here's a new one to check out. Actually, a wonderful photographer and photographic innovator but surprisingly unknown. I hope to find more information on him at some point. Pinkville
Well done. I'm sure I have heard of him, but sadly I'm also sure that I read nowhere near as much as what you have already written.
I have to tackle this chap some time. Do you happen to know anyone who reads Finnish? It would be good if they knew about Ismo Hölttö (or a bit more accessibly here) as well. -- Hoary 09:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Elvis Presley - Again!
Hi Hoary. Sorry to bother you with this again but once again the Presley article has been heavily modified. Would it be possible to put another neutrality tag on the article? Also, any contributions you could make to the discussion would be most appreciated. All the best. Lochdale 21:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Never much interested in Presley in the first place, I'm now pretty sick of reading WP stuff about him. It was with considerable reluctance that I looked at the (interminable, trivia-filled) page, its depressing history, and the latest tiresome additions to its talk page. My quick impression is that the article has recently suffered two kinds of damage:
Inane comments by yet another editor with the mind of a fourteen-year-old. These were quickly reverted.
The usual shovelfuls of quotations tirelessly unearthed by a particular monomaniac, all in aid of trivial aspects of Presley (who, we might easily be led to forget, is of note for having been a singer and actor).
The first problem: I could s-protect the page if you like but there seems little urgency right now. The second: the last time I tried to do something about all the blather about "relationships" etc etc, at least one sane editor (politely) labeled me as part of the problem rather than the solution. I gratefully took this as my excuse to "unwatch" the article and forget about it. I suggest that you describe what the problems are as clearly and cogently as you can (definitely not just "Look at the article and you will see for yourself"), and post this at the "I need assistance" page (whose exact title I don't remember offhand, sorry). Best of luck, and if you try to get help elsewhere and don't succeed, do ask again. -- Hoary 01:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Just a question, Hoary. Where is my contribution adding "material that will imply that Presley was notable primarily ... for porking his mother (?!), for being a playmate (?!) of someone called Nick Adams"? (See your recent statement on the administrators' noticeboard.) Such topics were not part of my last contributions. On the other hand, in my opinion, it is of some importance that Elvis (frequently referred to as a "sex symbol"), was not overtly sexual towards women, as several sources prove. But the real problem is that Lochdale simply claims that my edits are questionable, but this is not true. He also claims that most books do not support my contributions, but he is wrong, as facts show. You should have noticed that, as a kind of compromise, I didn't mention sources such as the controversial manuscript book by Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley in my last contributions, primarily centering on what is written in reputable Elvis biographies. But this material has also been deleted. It seems as if Lochdale did not read any of the major Elvis biographies. I have not yet seen that this user has given direct quotes from one of the sources he claims to have read. He frequently misquoted Guralnick's name as "Guralnik" in the past (see, for instance, this discussion), and he didn't even know the exact title of Guralnick's book Careless Love: The Unmaking Of Elvis Presley, as he cited it as "Careless Whisper". See [12]. He also disparages university studies I have used for my edits. He says, "I would disagree with that the information presented is really worth mentioning as a lot of it seems to be from college disertations etc...." See [13]. This statement speaks volumes. Lochdale's only aim seems to be to delete my contributions. Just one question. Is there a reasonable argument for excluding the whole paragraph on Elvis's male friendships from the article? See [14]. These friendships with members and employees from the Memphis Mafia are well documented and part of every Elvis biography and they are certainly accepted by the mainstream, as all these people played a significant part in the singer's life. Why should this paragraph be totally removed from the article? On the other hand, look at the unsourced "Trivia" sections of the article, for instance [15], and sections such as Elvis Presley in the 21st century or Elvis Lives?. These sections are fan stuff in no small degree, as they are always singing the praise of the megastar. Is all this material encyclopaedic? I don't think so, but some user's, among them Lochdale, do frequently support these sections by their contributions (see [16], [17]). Though I am not of the opinion that all this material should be included in the article, I never removed these paragraphs, as Lochdale frequently does with my contributions. In my opinion, Lochdale is part of an Elvis fan group which endeavors to suppress specific details about the singer's life from the article, if he is not somehow related to multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes (we have already discussed my suspicion here and elsewhere). And what about the well documented FBI files I have cited and the false claims by Lochdale concerning these files? See [18]. It seems as if I am the only user who frequently, and accurately, cites his sources, and Lochdale is frequently deleting the passages I have written. These are the facts, and Lochdale's deleting tactics are not acceptable. Onefortyone 14:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
See this if interested, and please do not continue this discussion here. -- Hoary 23:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
whoops
Midway down that page is a description of Mishima (not Hosoe) committing suicide. I guess by that point I had forgotten which article I was editing.--Mike Selinker 07:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
