User:Hoary/Archive03

Angel77

Thanks for reverting his edits to my Talk page; he's done the same to other people, and to a number of article Talk pages too. It's perilously close to vandalism, and completely bizarre. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to have helped.

WP does seem to attract a great number of people whose behaviour is completely bizarre. (a) Perhaps the wider world has many such people and I just hadn't noticed their existence. Then again... I can think of 1 friend of my mothers ... whos orthography is odd (in email), whos addicted to ellipses ... and who ends every 2nd sentense with multiple esclamacion marx!!!!!! And yet she's perfectly balanced and sane otherwise. So (b) perhaps nutty things are done on WP by otherwise normal people. Is it (a), or (b), or both? I shall ponder this when I go to bed, which will be soon. Oh, yet more irrelevantly: I recently enjoyed reading the little essay sold as a tiny, handsome book, On Bullshit. -- Hoary 14:25, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

On Bullshit really took me aback when I first saw it; I assumed that it must be a different William Frankena — but it wasn't. I haven't read it yet, though (the middle of term is a bad time to catch up on reading). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikilyrics

Hi. I just read your post on the deletion page for the Wikilyrics article. You said that the disclaimer "is stunningly wrong-headed." No offense here - I am honestly curious. What exactly do you mean? You go on to say that wikilyrics is guiltiy of "large-scale copyright violation." Please explain. Every song page on wikilyrics has that disclaimer at the top. It's nearly identical to the disclaimers on other lyrics sites. How is it that that is not legal? If you know more about the copyright laws, please tell me - I am extremely interested and certainly would like to find out that what I'm doing is illegal if it in fact is. I'm not asking for you to change the vote - I'm asking for useful information. You may reply here or in my talk page if you wish. --Anthony5429 17:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for writing so amicably. (I now think that my own earlier comment was unnecessarily grumpy.)

You catch me on a busy day. (WP won't get many contributions from me, at least for a few hours.) So I'll be brief. Copyrights have a certain similarity to requests for secrecy. If you tell me something and then say that I shouldn't tell anybody else, I should not then pass it on to my chums, asking them not to pass it on further. Somebody else's copyright of (say) a song lyric means that she can do what you want with it and I can't. If I announce that she is the copyright holder when I reproduce it, this may make my behavior less unacceptable in her eyes, but it needn't.

I agree that copyright is routinely violated on the web. I also think (though I don't know) that a lot of copyright holders don't worry about this, and that a few even encourage others' dissemination of their lyrics. I took a quick look at your site and it looked a lot better than its rivals (less tacky advertising, for one thing). But that doesn't affect copyright laws. -- Hoary 02:00, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. You obviously know more about this subject than I do. Since I made that post, I visited a page on google which specifically concerns online lyrics and title 17. I made several modifications to the disclaimer and I think now Wikilyrics is not violating the copyright. Maybe you can tell me if this is the case. I know the chances of getting shut down for copyright violation are extremely slim but even so, I would like to follow the law just as it is the right thing to do and I respect the artists' copyrights. --Anthony5429 14:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I passed through it to the Google answers thread. I'm not a lawyer, but I find it very hard to believe that US law would allow the virtually unlimited (web) dissemination of material with notices that it is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research". My guess is that you'd have to demonstrate that you had taken measures to ensure that dissemination was only for these ends; as it is, you have no control whatever. Note also what happened to the "International Lyrics Server", and consider the comment Definitely get a lawyer who's a copyright expert involved in this. The law is much more limiting than the official answer above suggests, to the point that I believe the answer verges on being misleading. Incidentally, I'm very dissatisfied with copyright legislation -- but it's not me who decides it. -- Hoary 15:01, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

True, true. You may have noticed I actually have a message on the general disclaimer asking anyone who is a copyright expert to contact me. It will be interesting to find out. For now, I'm keeping the site up unless I find that, for sure, the disclaimer doesn't keep it legal. Thanks for your help and have a nice day. --Anthony5429 21:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I see you are against lyrics as they are a copyright violation. Well I believe that would only apply to artists that have pleaded for their lyrics to not be on the internet. Its odd how we can have full plots to movies... such as the new Star Wars which is still in theaters, which has probably taken away box office from the creators, yet we can't post what someone sings. Redwolf24 05:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lyrics are copyrighted whether or not the copyright holder complains about them being republished without permission or not. Plots to movies on the other hand cannot be copyrighted. --W(t) 05:51, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Vandalism of others' user pages

Please do not vandalize my user page. I have already warned Yuber and Mel Etitis that their continued vandalism is unwanted.Enviroknot 02:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for making this request/comment politely, but insertion and reinsertion of the sockpuppet template is not considered vandalism hereabouts when convincing evidence is adduced for the allegation. -- Hoary 03:01, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

The evidence is fabricated as the users involved (Mel Etitis, Yuber, Firebug, Slimvirgin, and others) have been on a personal vendetta against the user they claim I am a sockpuppet of. They have accused me of being a sockpuppet falsely, because it gives them an advantage in a content dispute. Please do not vandalize my user page again.Enviroknot 03:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't expected the 3RR page to be archived so quickly (I notice from one or two other messages that others were equally taken aback). I've replaced the link to the (now accepted) arbitration request (and now that I know how to do it, I've replaced the template properly). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I've only just realised that you left me further messages on this topic (because I noticed your message to SlimVirgin). I get so many messages that I sometimes miss addition made to earlier threads. Sorry not to have replied earlier.

My position on this has been bolstered by the responses to the User-page edits (see the page Histories, paying particular attention to who is reverting changes on whose User pages, and the sort of language used). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Mel. Yes, the other two seem to be like each other. Yes, they're foulmouthed. Yes, they pull the socky template off Enviroknot's page. Yes, they and Enviroknot seem to be interested in a similar range of pages. But Enviroknot's list of contributions doesn't show him doing anything whatever on their pages, and his language seems perfectly acceptable to me. Or am I less observant and even sleepier than I realize? (It's 22:15 here, says my computer: "here" is my office, and I haven't yet had dinner. I'll be getting home at midnight again.) -- Hoary 13:14, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Concerning Jamaica Farewell

Can lyrics be private domain too? Lyrics site abound in the net, surely they are not illegal? And what does that GDFL thing mean? Another thing, how could you possibly edit my article within a minute of me starting it? ... added at 07:46, 2005 May 31 by Loom91

I don't know what you mean by "private domain", but if you're asking if lyrics can be copyrighted, the answer is "Certainly". Just take a look at the lyrics sheets of some CDs. Lyrics sites certainly abound on the net; their violations of copyright are illegal. For GFDL, please look at the material under the message input box when you add any material; specifically, the link to Wikipedia:Copyrights. How was I so fast? Well, I'd just downed a can of spinach! -- Hoary 07:54, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Do you have a Yahoo! or MSN Messenger account? I'll like to have a real-time conversation with you. Loom91 08:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I don't.

Incidentally, I hope you don't mind my deletion of your link. Perhaps I overlooked something, but as far as I could see the entire group archive consists of a message by you asking for information, plus irrelevant spam. If I'm right, then it offers no information, and if it offers no information, there's no reason from WP's PoV to link to it. -- Hoary 08:30, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

The link has a purpose. It's infested with SPAM now! That does not mean it's cursed or something. It will fill up with information if people see the link and start contributing to the group. The logic here is the same as stubs. Surely you are familiar why stubs are tolerated. And your restructuring of the Jimmy Buffet line was senseless. Jimmy Buffet is mentionable because he is a major singer. Thousands of people must have sung it. Your way of saying it gives the impression that Jimmy Buffet and Harry Belafonte were the only ones to sing it. Loom91 08:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

(i) It seems that your purpose in providing the link is to help the site that you link. I sympathize. But sorry, that has no value for Wikipedia, and this is why I am deleting it again. (ii) I don't understand what the analogy with a stub is. (iii) I'll reword what's said about Buffett. (iv) If thousands of people must have sung this, fine, let's see who some of them are. -- Hoary 08:55, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Do not take the offensive. But I still think that line isn't right. The best-known is Belafonte. Buffet comes second. With no intention to start an edit war, I'll reword that again. Loom91 09:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion on the article's talk page. -- Hoary 09:08, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Sir Lancelot

Interesting - I had never heard of him. I know a Pinard slightly (one is married to a friend of mine), but not very much about the family. Didn't make sense his being born in Cumuto until I saw in one of the links that his father was a government official. Thanks for the article. Bothers me not to know things like that about my own country. Guettarda 03:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I first knew of him via the film I Walked with a Zombie (a surprisingly good film, despite its stupid title), and I was reminded of him when I saw him in To Have and Have Not the other day. Well, Sir Lancelot only accidentally became a calypsonian, and thereafter only worked for the export market (I imagine). Still, he did a good job -- his work isn't really authentic calypso, but then it hardly could have been. It's softened for the US market, but by no means sold out. Somewhere I have an LP by him, but I don't know where. (Come to think of it, I don't know offhand where the record deck is either.)

For a second time, I'll admit to knowing next to nothing about "Jamaica Farewell". As a look in the history will show you, my "contributions" to that article were in cutting the various excrescences. -- Hoary 03:46, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Enviroknot

Hi Hoary, thanks for your message. I haven't looked at the page that's linked to, but I know from the editing pattern, writing style, and IP addresses used to post to WP and to e-mail admins, myself included, that there's no reasonable doubt that the three are being operated by the same person. More evidence will doubtless emerge during the arbcom case against him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:29, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

How do you nominate a page for neutrality?

How do you nominate a page for neutrality? The page for "Gene Loves Jezebel" is deserving of such nomination. Thank you. ........posted at 00:25, 2005 Jun 4 by Nominay

Sorry but I have no idea of what you are talking about. Perhaps if you gave an example of a page that has been awarded neutrality (??), I would then understand. Incidentally, it would be helpful, and I'd be grateful, if you'd sign your comments; this is easy: "~~~~". -- Hoary 03:33, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

I have no idea of what you're talking about of having no idea of what I'm talking about. You have awarded neutrality to pages in the past, even the recent past, so you should know exactly what I'm talking about. You know how to put that PNOV template on pages or whatever it is, when you think people are being biased, etc. How do I sign my name like you want on here? I don't know how to do that either. My name is Nominay. .... comment added at 07:03, 2005 Jun 5 by 24.155.125.234

(1) Show me a page to which I have "awarded neutrality", and I'll look at this page and attempt to explain. (Are you talking about removal of a template?)

(2) You sign and date your comment by hitting the twiddle key four times: "~~~~". -- Hoary 07:12, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Browsers 'n' stuff

Yes, I know about Macs and Linux, etc. In fact, my first computer that I owned was an Apple II, and I once worked at a computer store selling the original Mac 128's, and later the "Fat Macs" (512K). The store even had one leftover Lisa in the storeroom that they eventually unloaded on someone at about half-price (which was still double what it was worth after the Macs came out). The Apple II wasn't the first computer that I've programmed on, however. That was a DEC PDP-8 in 1968.

At the moment I have too much software and data that is PC only, so I'm not going to make the switch. So instead, I just practice (and recommend) "safe hex". I'll soon be upgrading to a new computer (yes, yet another WinDoze machine), but the old computer will be turned into a Linux workstation. On the other hand, I have been thinking strongly about getting one of the new Mac minis for my septuagenarian father for his next computer, since all he does is access the internet for stock information and do a little work in M$ Excel. BlankVerse ∅ 06:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I infer that your father doesn't already have Excel for Mac. If you don't already know of NeoOffice/J, good news, you don't have to give MicroSloth any more of your money.

I wonder how big the hard drive of the mini is. That of my new Mac laptop is 30GB, which I thought a little niggardly. I was also shocked to discover that only 19GB of it was free when it was brand new. I followed an acquaintance's advice and booted from the setup CD-ROM that came with the machine, asking for a reinstall from scratch. By picking and choosing and avoiding games, M$IE, Chinese and Korean fonts, etc etc, I ended up with 23GB free. (If I hadn't wanted Japanese, I'd have saved yet more space.) This operation was very simple. -- Hoary 07:08, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

calypsonians

Black Stalin, Roaring Lion and Growling Tiger are all descriptions much like Lord Melody. The are generally refered to simply as Lion, Tiger, Stalin. Guettarda 07:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aha! Yes, I had realized that "Roaring Lion" was the same as "Lion", but as it happened I'd never encountered "Growling Tiger" (always just "Tiger"). Time to stick the poster back up above my computer monitor: "Engage brain before operating keyboard". Sorry for screwing up the list! -- Hoary 08:15, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

You didn't screw up the list - I had messed up the spelling (S before P or something like that)...problem with trying to concentrate late at night. Guettarda 14:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Extra-terrestrial real estate

Your recent edit summary read: "The whole thing still strikes me as dodgy, though." It wasn't clear to me whether you thought that the issue or the article was dodgy. There are definitely organisations that sell land on the moon and elsewhere, although the sale on eBay is irrelevant (someone put my College up for sale recently...), and I've removed it. The summary was accurate, though; the definition is land etc. that's sold. Whether it should be sold, and whether the sales are legally binding, is another matter. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to have been vague. I thought that the "issue" was dodgy (to put it mildly). I had no reason to think that any sane, carefully thinking person would believe he or she could buy this surreal estate. (That fools or the dimwitted might pay money for a bit of Moon, etc., is a different matter.) No link was given, and a spot of googling turned up nothing.

I still don't see that land is being sold. What lunarembassy.com (thanks for the link) is doing, as I understand it, is selling bits of paper that it claims entitles the sucker buyer to a patch of Moon. This page tells us that a "very bright, young and handsome" chap went to the San Francisco Country Seat, where "the main supervisor", perhaps additionally befuddled by the beauty of this faunlet, probably thought, "Uh, yeah, why not", and OK'd it. Now middle-aged and paunchy (no Dorian Gray after all), he has been showered with awards by the Retrogressive Party. Touchingly a man of the 20th century, he pays lip-service to the UN, while being sure to point out that the US is the boss nation. Where was I? Yes, it's all nonsense. But then again, nonsense backed by the elephantine party does tend to become US law, which you'd better believe is universal law unless you want a "bunker buster" to aerate that sweet little Oxford garden of yours, buddy. (I think I'm going to throw up.)

Here's some common sense: the government not contesting [the "claim" is] sort of like me going into my local McDonald's and telling the manager there that I'm claiming ownership of the Quick-E-Mart across the street

Oh all right then, it probably depends on what's meant by sale. He's certainly taking money for bits of paper; is he thereby "selling" bits of Moon? Several floors below the office in which I now sit is, I believe, a copy of that remarkable book Words and Phrases Legally Defined (or similar title). But somehow I can't be bothered to look right now. -- Hoary 10:19, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:15, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 14:44, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Reply about Lucky

Intimidation Lucky put me in was not the main reason fro VfD, it's just that I thought he left Wikipedia permanently which I thought would be a good reason to put his user page up for vfd not to mention that it was also blank. Sorry about the bogus thinking. --SuperDude 06:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm surprised that Lucky 6.9 actually left. I thought he was a fine RC patroller, that has a chance to work on his short-temperedness (like I used to be few years back). - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lucky does seem to have blown up occasionally, but only when considerably provoked. I like to think that I wouldn't have blown up, but I'm not at all sure -- after all, I've never been provoked that much. I am sure that I've never put as much effort into attempting to deal with somebody difficult as Lucky did with this person or indeed as you did with your young Singaporean fan of airports etc. -- Hoary 02:59, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Looks like he's now back from his WikiVacation. - Mailer Diablo 08:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Israeli terrorism

What do you think about erasing this page and moving it into state terrorism?

Guy Montag 07:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but not really a good one either. I've added a PS to my "keep" vote. -- Hoary 09:33, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hi Hoary! Thanks for supporting my RFA! Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 23:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Supernaut

I saw your note on the Supernaut discussion page. I added the Ozzy sings louder so its much more obvious now, but as for your orchestra with solo part... Yes if you turn up the song you will hear an orchestra. Although its called a solo it doesn't mean other instruments can't go on in the background. Much like one of the solos to the Cream song, White Room which is actually played as Jack Bruce is singing. Not all solos are like that of Led Zeppelin's Heartbreaker. Redwolf24 05:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I understand now, I think. -- Hoary 06:13, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

More from User:PJJP

Take a look at 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami Impact on Global Media... VfD? --Macrakis 23:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From PJJP: Pls remove my vfd pages immediately (since I do not know how to do this). I understand your arguments. (I also this message with Macrakis.)

belated thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA nearly a month ago. Unfortunately a sad event occurred at that time in my family, and I have not been able to participate in Wikipedia as much as I would like. I hope to get back to active contribution soon. Thanks again! Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 00:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirects

Dear Hoary,this is user:tdxiang.I hope you help me out with this html...the article Fei Ge needs some redirecting automatically.Can you please assist me in this?Thank you and be a happy Wikipedian!

Done. I didn't bother to see who had done what, but anyway Fei Ge was redirecting to one page, which was redirecting to another. Just now I rewrote the first of these so it went directly to the third.

If you have any more problems, don't hesitate to ask.

Incidentally, it's simple to sign your name on talk pages: "~~~~". -- Hoary 03:44, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Lyrics and copyright

Dear Hoary,this is tdxiang again.Are lyrics not supposed to be posted on wikipedia?

Virtually all song lyrics are copyright. If they're copyright, you shouldn't post them on Wikipedia (or anywhere else). You may think that copyright rules are stupid -- I do think that they're stupid -- but whether or not we like them, we must follow them.

(Cough.) Could you please sign your name on talk pages ("~~~~")? Thank you. -- Hoary 08:14, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Signing

Erm...however smart i may be,i am ignorant of how to sign my name using html.How can i do that?Could you advise me?tdxiang

• Yes, you just hit the ~ key four times in a row. (Actually this is not HTML; rather, it's a property of the preprocessor that this site uses.) -- Hoary 09:42, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks for your support for my adminship. I am particularly grateful that you looked into the issues and added your opinion. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:44, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

To Have and Have Not

Oops, I didn't realize there was a separate article on the film - the To Have and Have Not article does discuss the film as well. john k 28 June 2005 13:56 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tea Sucking

Please re-visit this discussion. Uncle G 2005-07-01 16:16:18 (UTC)

Tea Sucking

• Actually, I didn't vote to delete, I just made a comment. But I agree 100% that this article now should be kept. I've voted accordingly. Thanks for the heads-up! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 2, 2005 10:32 (UTC)
• Thanks for the vote to keep. I didn't look at the first article but I certainly think Uncle G has summarised a significant social phenomenon.--Porturology 2 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)

Dudtz

Really you had those dreams of power when you were ten so did people like Lennin he was succesful you quit early why not try again .... added at 18:19, July 3, 2005 by Dudtz

Dudtz, you are presumably referring to Kardos Empire/Kingdom, Kardos Kingdom, Principality of Sodrak and specifically to my comment on VfD:"Kardos Empire" etc: "I had similar fantasies when I was ten or so (but I think my spelling was better). Delete the lot." This wasn't a "dream of power", it was merely a puerile fantasy. Incidentally, please sign your comments: just hit the ~ key four times in a row. -- Hoary July 4, 2005 02:32 (UTC)

Rumors about the hidden gay lives of Hollywood actors

Hoary, could you take a look at my talk page and give me your best guess as to what's going on with User:Mel Etitis...? Thanks! Wyss 4 July 2005 06:08 (UTC)

Hey Hoary, thanks for trying, but I really don't want you to think I want you dragged into that mess, it's rather nasty and unfun. Wyss 4 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)

"There is zero evidence Adams was gay... that means no letters, no first hand accounts of any trysts, no public outing, not even any documented gossip from the era that I'm aware of... nothing " (Wyss)

The problem is that User:Wyss has repeatedly claimed that there is zero evidence Adams was gay. In fact, there are several independent sources (books, reviews, articles, internet sources) I have quoted which support the view that Adams was gay. See Talk:Nick Adams. The unbiased reader may also have a look at the history of the James Dean article. Significantly, user Wyss has repeatedly deleted the assertion that Dean may have been bisexual, which was placed by others on that page a long time ago. For sources supporting the view that Dean may have been gay or bisexual, see Talk:James Dean. 80.141.192.66 4 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

You seem very interested in Nick Adams' sexual identity. Why? His notability derives from his acting, does it not? Why should a significant percentage of the article on an actor be devoted to his sexual proclivities or practices? As for James Dean, when you're sufficiently persuasive on Talk:James Dean to get rumors of his bisexuality into James Dean, then feel free to refer to these rumors where they improve some other article. -- Hoary July 5, 2005 08:15 (UTC)

Nick Adams was a minor Hollywood actor. At the end of his career he was forced to film third-class science fiction movies in Japan. His notability more derives from his relationships with other Hollywood stars than from his acting. 80.141.236.146 5 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)

His notability to you derives more from his relationships than from his acting. (To me, he's not notable at all, though I don't dispute his right as an actor to have an article.) If you sincerely believe that his notability derives from his relationships, perhaps you can suggest on the relevant talk page that the opening sentence should be changed from "Nick Adams (1931-07-10-1968-02-07) was an American actor and screenwriter" to "Nick Adams (1931-07-10-1968-02-07) was an intimate American friend of gay actors, a minor actor and screenwriter". -- Hoary July 5, 2005 14:51 (UTC)

Wyssss

Thanks for trying to mediate, but frankly it's pointless; Wyss is simply an inpossible boor, and nothing that anyone says will calm him down or get through to him. Oddly, Ted Wilkes is exactly the same... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

Mel, here you are utterly, utterly wrong. But I infer from elsewhere that you're starting to change your opinion, so at this point I shall say no more. -- Hoary July 6, 2005 02:26 (UTC)

verses

Hiya,

you recently voted to merge per Uncle G at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras Uncle G's proposal covered a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew

As you can see I am in over my head. Please feel free to help.--Melissadolbeer 07:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you want to create this kind of page for yourself, then the way to do it is to write [[Talk:Melissadolbeer/An additional page|An additional page]], which of course will come out as a red link. You click on it and create the page, whereupon the link to it will turn blue.

Incidentally, I notice that you've been deleting earlier messages from your user talk page. You're within your rights (since it is your user talk page), but (where the messages are not obviously asinine or abusive) such deletion is generally frowned on hereabouts. -- Hoary 08:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Basically, Melissadolbeer created Authentic Matthew, which I, and others, allege is original research. We moved the minimal amount of the article that was salvagable to suitable destinations, deleted the source text (which shouldn't be in Wikipedia when it is so extensive, and was already in Wikisource), and converted the article into a redirect to where the majority of the salvaged material was merged. Various sockpuppets of Melissadolbeer restored the article, and have been attempting to preserve it. Melissadolbeer's latest behaviour is as a result of the VfD going against her/him. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer for details of the sockpuppets, and their edits. ~~~~ 09:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; but yes, I understood already. I mean, without at this point saying which I agree with, I understand that this is your PoV, and I'd realized that what was above it was Melissa's PoV. I can add at this point that there's something seriously wrong with Authentic Matthew, but I really can't be bothered to work out what it is, simply because I virtually always find theology indigestible. To me, it's nonsensical, absurd, soporific, or some combination thereof. (Martin Gardner's novel The Flight of Peter Fromm is a rare exception.) And when I see one of these VfDs, I'm deterred by the sheer volume of earnest opinions. I suppose religion, Star Wars (and the like), and spectator sports will always be closed books to me. -- Hoary 09:18, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

R A Lawson

Thanks for the lavish complement, but it does a have a way to go yet, trouble is all the tweaking I do makes it longer, it probably need to be more concise, but I don't like to leave anything out, and then when it goes to FA I get irritated when people start suggesting sub-pages. I think I get a bit over entheusiastic for my subject! Giano | talk 09:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It's fine, Giano.

One slight oddity that I didn't touch was the capitalization of "g/Gothic". It's mostly capitalized, and I wondered whether the exceptions were deliberate: I do know that some people try to distinguish between (a) the "gothick" of Beckford and the (b) "gothic" of Chartres or Pugin, and there might also be an orthographic distinction within (b). -- Hoary 09:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

You obviously have not literally translated it into Italian where it makes perfect sense. I'm surprised you didn't think of that! It's beautiful flowing flamboyant descriptive entheusiastic golden prose which is obviously completely unintelligable to anyone but me - I'll change it. Actuall I may change quite a bit as I've just seen how to pull the whole thing together it together. As for Gothic until I came here I never capitalised it at all, now I do but every now and again old habits creep in - regarding linking Europe, in my experience if you don't some "Know-all" comes along wikifies it and leaves a caustic edit summary which irritates the hell out of me more than seeing the perfectly obvious linked. Giano | talk 11:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That's us Brits: we're unimaginative. Still, we're artistic: see the following discussion, where I'm praised for having been artistic even without having intended to be artistic. -- Hoary 14:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the "welcome" comments - take a look now and RSVP. Giano | talk 22:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Just re-read above I mean to bold "welcome" not invert it, realise it may have looked as though I did not welcome, when in fact I do welcome, this is all confusing now, you know what I mean in fact (I hope you do} regards Giano | talk 07:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Not problem, Giano: quotation marks are used for simple emphasis in Japanese, in German if I remember correctly, and for all I know in Italian too. But all this is trivial. What's important is that the huge majority of the work on that article is yours, and the result is very good indeed. -- Hoary 07:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation

You have all been unwitting participants in a peice of performance art entitled "Wikipedia Project: Spring-Summer 2005". All of this has been a big giant peice of art involving several people throughout North America. Thanks for unwittingly playing your roles to a tee. TheSpottedDogsOrganisation 13:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Lovely! Shall I post my bank account details here, or on your user talk page? I'd like to make it as easy as possible for you to reimburse me: I think €50 would be fine. -- Hoary 14:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

You are not getting one red American cent, you Euroweenie! Spotteddogsdotorg 23:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Spotteddogsdotorg? Didn't you mean to log in with TheSpottedDogsOrganisation?

Anyway, I charge $100/hr with minimum of $500 for any service I provide. Since it's a special occasion, double all values. I'll also happily give Hoary half because I'm a generous guy so you need not pay him if you're going to rob from an artist. Cburnett 23:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary

Thanks, Hoary. I was the one who started the VfD for List of vehicles from Grand Theft Auto but didn't have chance to follow procedure. Would you believe it that was followed with a week of me not being around to edit the 'pedia. I came back to see you did it for me, and I just wanted to give a thanks! Cheers — CuaHL 01:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/National Lampoon's Pledge This!

I totally share your lack of enthusiasm for this movie. National Lampoon hasn't made a decent film since Animal House, and I hardly think of Paris Hilton as a star, but I do think it's worth having an article about. As unlikely as I am to see it.  :) John Barleycorn 19:22, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Really, I somehow got the name wrong. The film will be dreck, but people will go to see it anyway, because they like dreck and because there's some popular fascination with Paris Hilton. And even if they didn't go to see it, it's a movie, and every movie deserves an article, just as every episode of a TV series deserves an article, and every fictional asteroid even mentioned in Star WarsTrek deserves an article (yawn). -- Hoary 02:33, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

LOL. I'm a little more likely to support keeping just about anything that is verifiable and NPOV, but I even drew the line at The Dungeon Siege Movie, because it has no release date at imdb, even though it has an interesting cast. John Barleycorn 05:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Certainly that's what the rules say. I sometimes used to try to challenge the inclusion of terminally trivial "information" about this or that Hollywood mediocrity, but I have to admit that the rules are generally against considerations of "notability" and also every silly thing seems to have a number of extraordinarily energetic fan-defenders. I suppose WP becomes a microcosm of anglophone culture, which (as shown on TV, in the rest of the web, etc.) is for the most part ignorable. (I was going to add a rhetorical/plaintive "Whatever happened to the counterculture?", but Thomas Frank's One Market under God has already told us the answer, and it's not a pretty one.) -- Hoary 04:26, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with including articles about foreign language films, to counter any Anglophone bias. I notice there seems to be an article on every recording that has ever existed, but those, too, seem to be completely dominated by Anglophone performers. John Barleycorn 17:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Every pop recording, I think you mean. ("Art music", wossat?) However, some time ago I noticed that some nutter fan was writing up every CD compilation he could find of the recordings of Enrico Caruso. None that I saw had any real information in it, such as about the relative awfulness of the originals used, or the relative relentlessness of the "noise reduction" applied. No, they were just lists: this album contains tracks with these titles. That was particularly bizarre as Caruso tended to record commercially successful stuff three or more times and was often slapdash or in failing form, so it would be good to know which version was used. Oh yes, here's an example. -- Hoary 23:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

dehiscence

I just recreated this page without realising that it had been deleted quite recently. I think there is more to this page than a definition. Botanical articles on wikipedia are very sparse, as can be seen by the number of red links in this article. I would hope that articles like this will lead to those red links being created as decent articles in their own right as opposed to definitions. Any way I just wanted to give you a heads up on this page since you had been involved in the previous deletion. David D. 19:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Botanical science is one of my many areas of utter ignorance, but as far as I can understand the new article it's very worthwhile and I start to regret having caused the deletion of its predecessor. Anyway, I wish the new article all the best and do encourage you in your struggles against ignoramuses such as myself. -- Hoary 02:33, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, I did not see the previous article and judging from the discussion on it's deletion page it sounded worthy of deletion. You should not regret your action. Consider that if anything of importance is deleted it will always be created again, eventually, as is the case here. I just wanted to ensure I didn't antagonise you by recreating the page. As more people get on board the stubs will eventually blossom. Although it will be a slow process. David D. 17:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you overestimated my antagonisability, David -- but I understand what you mean, and it's much appreciated. Yes, VfD/Dehiscence explains: the first version was a dicdef that stank of copyright violation; Kappa, with whom I seem to have amicable disagreements about almost everything, seemed to be persuaded by this and (being more energetic than I am) actually found the source, which is what killed it. I'm interested, though: what made you think of looking for VfD/Dehiscence? (Not that it's any of my business.) -- Hoary 04:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Re: antagonisability, you never know on the internet! Although in wiki most people seem quite mellow which is good.

I discovered the VfD when I checked the 'what links here' option. When I create a page I have found it is useful to check the context of the pages that link to it. Possibly I can correct misinformation or add content to those pages. Actually, in this case, I discovered the word also has a medical meaning. David D. 04:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[Sound of palm smacking forehead]

The mellowness evaporates, you'll find, when you edit anything that's relevant to, say, the present, um, Leader of the Free World. And that's one example among many. Stick to botanical science! And for my part, I keep promising myself that I'll ignore others' interests and obsessions and work in my own areas of interest (or obsessions, as others may see them). -- Hoary 04:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Can you give him his username back?

I screwed with this mean person enough since he did not give me the WCAU tape that I wanted from TV News Talk. Can you give him his user name back. I think he learned his lesson! MrPhillyTV 18:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC) It was User talk:Spotteddogsdotorg who did this to me. If you have an old WCAU video tape when they were CBS please help me!

You have posted the same series of obscure messages elsewhere, e.g. to User talk:Spotteddogsdotorg, and I cannot add anything to what Pharos has already written in rather mystified reply. -- Hoary 04:24, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

What the heck?

Do you know what the deal was with the anon who left me a message on my talk page? I can't figure out how I ended up involved in whatever is going on! -- Essjay · Talk 04:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't bother looking when I posted my own reply. I'd imagine, though, that he did something stupid when logged in, that you noted this on his user page, and that he forgot to log in when he protested. -- Hoary 08:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't thought of that. Honestly, with some of them, it's like they think they are the only person I've ever warned. Sheesh. Thanks for your help! -- Essjay · Talk 09:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

Hey Hoary, how would you like to have a look over at the talk page for Elvis Presley when you have a tick? Thanks :) Wyss 15:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Done.

I didn't bother to read the article in any detail, but I do remember having read that EP generated a lot more money via his dreadful films than via his sometimes listenable music. I think his music was good till somewhere around 1956 -- but then I hear the Bonzos' "Canyons of your mind" and can't even listen to EP's early work without laughing. -- Hoary 04:08, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

PS Presleyirrelevant, but here is one to boggle the mind, and here's another. -- Hoary 06:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary. Btw, I did find those links rather boggling ;) Wyss 18:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hey, old chap! Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 01:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, Mark, I can't say I approve of that "logic" (?) at all, but I do appreciate the sentiment behind it. Now enjoy yourself swatting the cockroaches of WP. You may decide that I am one of them (after all, I am "a rude fuck"). -- Hoary 12:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

LOL, that discussion on the Village Pump really made my day! :P - Mailer Diablo 17:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandal

Ah, he's pretty harmless, all he does is vandalize my page, and it's usually reverted pretty quickly. But if you think {{sockblock}} is better, I'll be happy to make the change. -- Essjay · Talk 03:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Done! User talk:LessJay -- Essjay · Talk 04:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

---

Re your edits at Elvis Presley including - 23:13, August 9, 2005 Hoary m (Rv Onefortyone's readdition of gossip from sensationalizing and dodgy sources; see this)

There has been a lengthy and exhausting discussion at Talk:Abraham Lincoln and now at Talk:Elvis Presley and its archived Talk pages surrounding the exact same issue as was discussed and voted upon already on the Abraham Lincoln matter. Because this has the potential to create a new standard for what is acceptable Wikipedia sources, I thought that you might want to be aware of it. If the policy consensus arrived at on the Abraham Lincoln issue is set aside in the Presley article it will result in new ones for countless others. I think the existing determination of what constitutes a proper source should be defined by the Wikipedia community and set as firm policy which would go a long way in helping to substantially reduce the tiresome and repeated edit wars. Thank you for your interest. Please note I have left the same message for others who worked on this matter. Ted Wilkes 20:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Leaving user pages alone

please leave my user page alone message added at the top of this page at 23:17, 19 August 2005 by Vega007

Vega007, I don't recall ever having touched your user page. I have, however, given what I hope is useful advice on your user talk page. You delete this and other useful comments, while oddly leaving the welcome message. This gives the wrong impression that there's been no correspondence. If you really want to delete stuff, why not delete the welcome message as well?

Incidentally, it's customary to add comments at the foot of others' talk pages, and to sign them. -- Hoary 23:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Smae here, I have "Adding nonsense" in my User_Talk. What was that for ? 217.25.194.150

Good question. I really don't know. I've deleted the comment. -- Hoary 06:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Suppression of criticism of Elvis Presley, etc.

I replied here on 20 Aug 05 to messages posted here by Ted Wilkes and Onefortyone before noticing that these also appeared at Talk:Elvis Presley. I've therefore replied there and deleted all the messages here. -- Hoary 07:40, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

My opponents are frequently deleting the whole critical paragraph. As far as I can see, there is no consensus to exclude the whole thing from the Elvis article, as has been claimed by Wyss. The paragraph may be rewritten. Somebody else may add more details. But I think it is important to have a critical voice in the article. Wikipedia is no fan site. Onefortyone 17:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Then let's discuss the matter at Talk:Elvis Presley. -- Hoary 00:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Would you please have a look at the Talk:Elvis Presley page. User:Wyss has now deleted a new paragraph on Elvis's death. It seems as if my opponents try to suppress every critical remark. This is not O.K. Onefortyone 18:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Numbers/ordinals

The rule of only spelling out numbers under ten is relatively recent in this country (it's closer to the German rule, so might well be U.S.-influenced; things are different for print journalism, of course — newspapers have always been short of space); all my manuals say that numbers should normally be spelt out under 100. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer ordinary English text to be text; "14th birthday", "at the age of 27", etc., jar me. As a couple of editors were insisting on numerals for all numbers and ordinals in pop-music articles, from 1 (always preceded by "#", of course, just in case readers were too dim to recognise a number when they saw one) and 1st upwards, I've tended just to treat them all as a package.

To be honest, the difference of six letters between "14th" and "fourteenth" shouldn't make too much difference in a seriously overlong article (as you probably saw from my Talk page, I was less sanguine about merging the "achievements" article into the main article).

My tastes are more along the lines of Sarah Vaughan, Joni Mitchell, Lavern Baker, Madeleine Peyroux, Laura Nyro, Maria Farandouri, Clare Teal, Syd Straw, Ella Fitzgerald, M'bilia Bel, Eddi Reader, Kate & Anna McGarrigle, Mariza, Etta James, Hanitra, Linda Thompson, Fairouz, Cassandra Wilson, Bebel Gilberto, Billie Holiday, Mariza... you know, singers like that. (Only four three red links; I'm impressed by Wikipedia all over again.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)