Jump to content

User talk:Hoary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Myraedison (talk | contribs) at 15:30, 28 October 2010 (→Daniel Colegrove). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If I've posted something on your talk page, please reply there rather than here. Any new question or comment at the bottom of the page, please. If you post something here, I'll reply here.

Guinnois all round! (The wheaten bread appears to be complimentary..) Stevejohnson82 (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

States

When you mentioned a "less emotive state", I was thinking of Connecticut. But that's probably not what you had in mind. Anyhow, I think the final paragraph you removed, while unsourced and unencyclopedic editorial opinion, was pretty on the mark. Of course, I canceled my subscription after they decided to publish Farber's piece on teh HIV/AIDS conspiracy - because if I know they don't fact-check medical articles, where I can catch them, then why should I trust their writing on subjects where I have to take their word for it? Anyhow... MastCell Talk 17:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed some rather good turns of phrase in what I impatiently reverted. But, questions of the unencyclopedic aside, I didn't know where the boundary was between the perceptive and the horseshitty.
I'd hardly been aware of Harper's, vaguely assuming that it was some vehicle to persuade the rich and insecure to spend yet more of their money on handbags and wristwatches. But one day in a bookstore in Seoul's new airport some front-page headline caught my eye and I flicked through it, bought it, and read it on the way to Yurp. The best ingredient was an article by Lapham, a new name to me. I was delighted to infer that the thinking and reading US population was still sufficiently numerous to support a fourth magazine worth reading (after The Baffler, NYRB and [bits of] the New Yorker).
I might have guessed that this wouldn't last.
Thinking of the discerning US public's demand for accuracy in reporting ... seen this? -- Hoary (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to read Harper's religiously - among other things, for some time it was one of the few outlets for new creative writing in the US (things are better now). And they do some very interesting and thought-provoking work. Lewis Lapham's columns were always enjoyable reading. On the other hand, I started to pick up a few warning signals over time.

They published an article on the treatment (or lack thereof) of hepatitis C in the US prison system, where it is fairly widespread. The gist was that the US prison system is shitty, which isn't exactly news. But the author was either ignorant of or uninterested in the realities of treating hepatitis C, even outside prison, insofar as those realities would have undercut The Message. I let that slide, but the Farber piece - which was basically a one-way ticket to Crazytown, published with a straight face - was the last straw. That piece clearly had not been fact-checked - at least not by anyone with a working college-level knowledge of biology and immunology. So then I didn't trust them anymore.

Occasionally I see Harper's at the newsstand, and the cover invitingly beckons... but I haven't read it since. Its literary criticism did tend toward the insular and pretentious, but a little bit of that is OK. It's almost charmingly anachronistic in today's world to be snobbish about the work of, say, Somerset Maugham, or even to know who he is.

I have to say I stopped watching Presidential press conferences after Bush left office - they lost the sense of surreal absurdity that made them so worthwhile. I remember when Bush explained the need to waterboard detainees by saying: "These are people who are trained to disassemble!" Apparently he was getting blank stares from the press corps, because he helpfully added: "That means not tell the truth." Or when Ari Fleischer issued "reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do" if they didn't want to get in trouble after 9/11. Those kind of things, that make you look at the person next to you to see if they really happened, are no longer a feature of Presidential press conferences. Although I've bet a friend that Gibbs will ask about Obama's birth certificate during the run-up to this November's elections... MastCell Talk 23:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Farber should have realized that the only real solutions come from science. Like, y'know, this stuff (and another tip of the hat to Wonkette). The best WH news conference I've seen is the one created by Colbert. But then I've never seen "Jeff Gannon" at work. -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnbuses

Thanks. Did I spend that long? I thought I'd do a stub in an hour, but I got engrossed. I'm now emailing to see if I can get some free images to use, and it's in the DYK queue as well. But please don't make any more tempting suggestions too soon! Ty

Thanks for the corrections. This format "Retrieved 2010-08-14" happened automatically in Word without me knowing, when I put the text there for safekeeping at one stage, then copied and pasted it. Thanks again Microsoft. Something to watch. Ty 00:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused. I thought it was me who put those in, for the Guardian material I'd just located online. It's a rather barbaric format but at least it's concise and in an order that's more sensible than that used by the inscrutable Americans. But then I noticed that elsewhere in your article you'd used another format, so I switched to that. ¶ As for Word, I use OpenOffice instead. It's hardly any better or worse, but at least I don't have to transfer any money to Microsoft in order to use it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blind reversal in Brazil

Series of edits undoes most of the improving that has been made in Brazil (with the insertion of a blank line that made it very difficult to see what changes were actually done). I reverted to the last reliable version, and was immediately re-reverted, with this cute edit summary: (Reverting vandalism). Ninguém (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surrender of Japan

I'm impressed. You're doing a very thorough job, and personally, I like the results. Good work! And thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding some of your comments: (via http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Surrender_of_Japan&action=historysubmit&diff=380089042&oldid=379968244)

  • 21 May 1945: Malik (Soviet ambassador to Tokyo) tells Tanakamura[vague] that the treaty continues in force.
    • Tanakamura was
  • 24 June 1945: Malik tells Hirota[vague] that the Neutrality Pact ... will continue ... until it expires.
    • Hirota was

Hmmm. That's a worry; I know the names, but can't remember the positions.
I'll fill in the gaps tomorrow.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By-the-way, you seem to be linking Sato, but not Malik or Molotov. Any particular reason for that? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm linking Satō because readers are likely to think "'Satō'? Who he?" (By contrast, I'm always unenthusiastic about links that are unlikely to appeal: At first, some refused to believe the Americans had built an atomic bomb.) There's no particular reason why I'm not linking Malik or Molotov; please go ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pdfpdf (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary - the work you've been doing on the Surrender article is good, but something is bothering me. You have repeatedly tagged things as vague that could be trivially fixed with one or two google searches. The above paragraph, for example. It was a reference to Kōki Hirota. I didn't know that at first, but I figured it out with exactly 1 google search. Ditto this that I fixed earlier -- searching for that quote on Google Books produces exactly one hit, with a page number. Please spend a minute checking google before tagging the article. Raul654 (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to this, Tanakamura was a fishing fleet owner. Raul654 (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very deserved criticisms.
I'll explain the process. When I came across the article, after an interval of some months if not years, I was struck by the way it was curiously unidiomatic, as if revised by somebody for whom English was a near-perfect second language but one marked by at least one distinct oddity. (Adverb placement was strange.) I did a quick revision. As I did this, I became aware of minor content oddities: the full name and military position of one person would be repeated, the full name of another stated nowhere. So I printed out the whole thing and went through the result with a red pen while commuting to and from work a couple of times (and with no computer or other browsing device). I then transferred the red-penning to the article, while rather less awake and energetic than I'd been on the train. While doing this, I googled for oddities that particularly intrigued me and for those that benefited from an elementary ability in Japanese. I left the rest as "vague", "dubious" and so forth not from any assumption that they'd be particularly hard to fix, let alone any desire to leave the article littered with these carping flags, but because I inferred that the article was watched by enough energetic people for those flags to disappear quickly. Time and energy willing, I'd return to them myself.
Well, I hope that my involvement has been (or continues to be) a net positive. In the meantime, I regret the irritations I've caused. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, been busy. Will try to fill in the gaps I left "real soon". Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your router issue

Okay, to sum it up:

  1. Ask your techies for one static IP, and the corresponding network mask. If they ask "For what purpose?", tell them you need it for a network device, if they inquire further, say it is a manageable switch / access point. Do not let them in that it is a router (since we will not be using it as such anyways) - that might cause some unnecessary worries on their side.
  2. Unplug the WAN cable from your router.
  3. Plug a LAN cable between your Computer and your router
  4. Access the configuration menu.
  5. Note down the settings of the screen shown in chapter 4.5.2 - not the settings in the manual, mind you, but the ones displayed on your computer screen.
  6. Verify that you copied them correctly and disable the DHCP server.
  7. Only in case you lose connectivity to the router after that step, you will have to assign a fixed IP to your computer as a temporary measure. Pick an IP in the middle of the two IP addresses you copied from the DHCP screen, then access the router again.
  8. Enter the new IP address and netmask that you received from your techies in the screen shown in chapter 4.5.1.
  9. Tell the router to save all changes, if it doesn't do so automatically.
  10. If you had to change the IP address of your computer in step 7, un-do these changes and set it back to DHCP.
  11. Power down your computer.
  12. Power down the router.
  13. Plug your office ethernet cable into one of the LAN ports of your router.
  14. Power up the router.
  15. Wait until it has finished powering up.
  16. Power up your computer.

Now you should be able to access the network via LAN cable as well as via wireless connection. To configure the router (say, if you want to change the wireless password, channel, or encryption setting), access http://ip.you.got.from.techsupport.here. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but, but, a fixed IP seems kind of daft, in that the IP number would go unused most of most working days. (It's not as if this were a web server or anything.)
Spot of bother here as (i) Okular refuses to display the Japanese text of the PDF (a problem I used to encounter often but that I haven't seen in years) and (ii) I've mislaid the power cable for my assistant's 100% Japanese Windows machine (which of course could display the PDF). I'll have to come in early tomorrow and look for the latter in the other office where I suppose I must have left it. (Or, come to think of it, I could install Acrobat Reader on my computer.) Till tomorrow! -- Hoary (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you need a static IP for the router when "abusing" it as a glorified switch/Access Point, because the router itself cannot act as a DHCP client on its LAN ports - so you would lose the ability to configure it. That means whenever you want to make a change (allow new clients on the wireless network, if you're using MAC-based authentication, or if you want to change the wireless password, etc.) you would have to unplug the router, perform a factory reset and repeat all the steps from above. Much easier to assign it a static IP. And yes, your router is in fact a web server as well - that's how it displays its config menu. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now sitting -- and, past my bedtime, dozing off -- ten or so kilometres away from it so I can't check, but I think that the menu in the web page (so yes you're right it's a web server) said it comes with five or so IP numbers among which it or I can choose. It seems as if I can change this easily. I'm totally lost here: how am I (even in jokey quotes) "abusing" the thing? I thought that linking an ethernet cable to one or more computer, whether by wire or wirelessly, was what these things were designed to do. (We have something that looks vaguely similar here at home, and it does the job uncomplainingly. Though maybe our ISP gives us a fixed IP here; I wouldn't know.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, to clarify:
  • A (non-wireless) router has a WAN port and one LAN port. It will act as a DHCP Client on the WAN port, and hand out private IP addresses with its DHCP Server on the LAN port. It acts as an intermediary between the upstream network device connected on the WAN port, and the downstream network devices connected on the LAN port. None of the upstream devices sees the IP addresses of the downstream devices (your computers) - upstream always believes your router is the only connected device and all the traffic is originating from it. (That, by the way, is probably the reason why you need to re-authenticate so often - the upstream device that asks for authentication gets confused because what it sees as one device - your router - is actually many devices hiding behind the single IP of your router.)
  • An Access Point has one or more antennas, and one LAN port, but no WAN port. It is basically on the same level as all the other devices it connects to (by cable and wireless), so every other device sees the real IP address of the device it is "talking" to. It's kind of like a switch (see below), but with a management option to set a network name, encryption level, channel number, etc. - that's why it needs an IP of its own.
  • A switch is basically an extension cord for networks - all the devices you plug into it "see" each other. It is a "dumb" device and does not care about IP addresses, DHCP or whatever.
  • What you have is a combination of a router
    and a switch (the 4 LAN ports of your device are a switch - there's basically an imaginary fifth LAN port hidden inside the box that connects directly to the actual router's LAN port)
    and an access point (which plugs into an imaginary sixth LAN port) - a wireless router.
  • What you need, to avoid the multiple login issue you are experiencing, is a simple access point - combined with a switch, if you want to plug in devices as well, rather than rely on wireless only.
  • Since your wireless router can be dumbed down/"abused" as an access point/switch combination, buying new hardware is not necessary.
  • By turning off the DHCP server on the wireless router, giving it a static IP from your current network's range, and plugging the office ethernet cable into a LAN port, leaving the WAN port unused, you're bypassing the actual router component, so it will act as an access point with the added benefit that you have a few LAN ports for wired connections, should you want to use them.
This is the inside of your router - the only parts you're seeing are the ones in (round brackets):
(WAN)--[actual router]--[router's LAN]==[LAN5]--[switch]--[LAN6]==[access point's LAN]--[access point]--(antenna)
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                             (LAN1)+
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                             (LAN2)+
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                             (LAN3)+
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                             (LAN4)+
And the way you should use it to avoid the multiple login issue is this:
                                                [switch]--[LAN6]==[access point's LAN]--[access point]--(antenna)
                                                   |
                                                   |
            office ethernet cable goes here==(LAN1)+
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                             (LAN2)+
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                             (LAN3)+
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                             (LAN4)+
If you would leave the DHCP server enabled (which you really should not do), what would happen is this:
       [actual router]--[router's LAN]==[LAN5]--[switch]--[LAN6]==[access point's LAN]--[access point]--(antenna)
                                                   |
                                                   |
            office ethernet cable goes here==(LAN1)+ Now the router's LAN is connected to the office LAN
                                                   | and it will fight with the office LAN's DHCP server - 
                                                   | serving DHCP addresses of its supposedly internal 
                                             (LAN2)+ network range to all the devices on the office LAN
                                                   | ==> Chaos ensues, as machines trying to renew their
                                                   | DHCP leases will randomly switch between your rogue
                                             (LAN3)+ DHCP server and the official one. 
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                             (LAN4)+
Both the actual router and the access point share the same management IP - the one you're using for the web interface. Since you want to be able to access the access point's management features even though you don't need the routing/DHCP component, you should assign a static IP in the web interface.
By the way, the reason why the router at home works "out of the box" isn't that your provider gave you a static IP (which may or may not be the case), it's because you're using the device in the way it is usually used - upstream goes in WAN, downstream goes in LAN. The WAN side of the actual router component supports several options of getting an IP (static, DHCP, PPPoE,...), while on the LAN side, only static IPs are supported for the router/AP management interface's IP.
--78.43.71.155 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and you can turn PDFs into pictures here: http://view.samurajdata.se/ - it takes a while, but it might still be less of a hassle than to install acrobat reader. Feed the URL http://corega.jp/prod/wlrgnxw/pdf/wlrgnx_detail_d.pdf into the field that says "WEB view". Pages 115 and 116 are the ones you should be looking at. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for all the help. I've noticed that I hardly need any signal amplification in my own room, in that the signal I get from my moderately local part of the LAN (outside my room, but presumably on the same or the adjacent floor) seems pretty strong. But there are still other irritations. I'm keeping your message and may reapply it all soon. -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to be in Japan or at least have quite some knowledge about it -- is it true that some Japanese companies hire Japanese servants for their higher-ranking, Japanese-born staff living abroad, so that these higher-ups don't have to deal with the locals? A friend told me that story once, but it sounds rather weird to me. Then again, I'm only a gaijin. (If you have no idea what this has to do with your original question, that's OK, just bear with me and answer - I'll explain afterwards.) -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anyone ranked so highly in a Japanese company. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this were true. But I've heard second-hand accounts of how a small and depressing minority among Japanese wives of men posted abroad -- and remember, Japan is an intensely sexist society; I am talking about women tagging along with the men -- are or gamely pretend to be happy to live abroad but refuse to learn more of the local language (or a lingua franca) than is needed to buy things at a supermarket. Certainly a lot (but not all!) of Japanese university entrants arrive from years in nations whose languages they don't speak at all: life seems to have been linguistically divided into Japanese at home and English at school; and the natives seem largely to have been viewed through car windows during the daily commute. -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's the reason why I asked:
Let's assume this story is true, then there's a parallel to your router issue.
Imagine we have Mr. Takahashi and Mr. Watanabe as company big-wigs. They stand for your and your co-worker's computer. The problem for these guys is, they don't speak English, and while high-ranking enough for a personal assistant, they're not high-ranking enough to have one for each, they have to share Mr. Yamaguchi (your router).
The next problem: While Mr. Yamaguchi speaks both English and Japanese, he isn't exactly the brightest bulb in the chandelier and sometimes takes tasks too literally.
  • What happens now is that Mr. Takahashi sends Mr. Yamaguchi off to another company to pick up some papers for him, and tells him the "magic word" he needs to enter that building. Instead of acting on Mr. Takahashi's behalf, though, Mr. Yamaguchi *pretends* to be Mr. Takahashi when asked for identification by the company's security staff at the door (the security staff being just as daft as Mr. Yamaguchi, they'll wave him through after hearing the magic word and noting down the name "Takahashi" next to it). He retrieves the papers and returns them to Mr. Takahashi.
  • Five minutes later, Mr. Watanabe sends Mr. Yamaguchi to fetch his copy of the papers from the same company. Now, Mr. Yamaguchi tries to get through the doors, and presents himself as Mr. Watanabe. Now, security doesn't have Mr. Watanabe's magic word on record, so they ask for it (that's the password dialog that pops up). Seeing that magic word on their list, they cancel out Mr. Takahashi's name behind it, replace it with "Mr. Watanabe", and let Mr. Yamaguchi pass, under the assumption that he is Mr. Watanabe. (And they'll probably think to themselves: "Gee, these Japanese sure do look all alike!")
  • Now Mr. Takahashi has signed his stack of papers and wants Mr. Yamaguchi to take them back to the company, and the game starts from the beginning - the magic word is associated with Mr. Watanabe instead of Mr. Takahashi, so security asks for the magic word again, replaces the name in their list, etc.
See, networking is fun. :-D
-- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:JA

I'm petitioning to modify the Japanese manual of style to allow the use of tildes/wavedashes/dashes as a method of separating the subtitle from the title of music/other media. Seeing as you were the user who originally put this aspect of the MOS in place, I'd like to get your input at WT:MOS-JA as to why you originally suggested that the tildes et al. should not be used.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Username

It is rare to see the word "hoary" in print; but I did stumble across it here in an article about the Richard Lane collection at the Honolulu Academy of Arts:

"The Academy’s bold purchase of the Lane Collection offers an irresistible illustration of how knowledge plus instinct plus vision can sometimes equal extreme good fortune. (It also demonstrates the hoary but ever-relevant maxim that one expert’s trash—or garbage or junk—may be another’s dazzling treasure.)"

Is the use of this word as uncommon as I think it is? --Tenmei (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its typical use these days seems to be mildly pejorative: a hoary joke (one we've heard far too often), a hoary myth (one conclusively debunked long ago), etc. But from Zuleika Dobson alone:
  • William, the hoary bargee, was pushing them off with his boat-hook, wishing them luck with deferential familiarity.
  • [Floating far above it,] I saw Oxford as a place that had no more past and no more future than a mining-camp. I smiled down. O hoary and unassailable mushroom!
It hardly seems rare. Anyway, if the meaning doesn't apply to me, then it eventually will -- unless of course my hair falls out or I die prematurely. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think of it as describing something (either physically or more intangibly) as bumpy and rough, like a frog, which would probably go with the bargee quote ;) . I wonder what OED says. — e. ripley\talk 13:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U Tokyo, Keio U, and academic boosterism

ask User:ScorchingPheonix --Wikipedian05 (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism and I have not removed the matelials from the article, just removed them from the lead.--Wikipedian05 (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism is an essay, not a policy (I happen to agree with it, but still). Colincbn (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't previously encountered it. I strongly agree with it too. I was struck by the way in which Wikipedian05 appeared to have such different approaches to two universities. Incidentally, "OR" tells me that there's plenty of both excellence and mediocrity at both universities, and indeed at most Japanese universities. Perhaps particular gakubu (conventionally translated as "faculties") can be ranked meaningfully, but even within each of these you often have a great range among the zemi (itself a curious Japanese tradition) and so forth. -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course while I agree with it very much I don't think it is appropriate to use essays as a rational for controversial actions, or any action that might meet resistance for that matter. In almost all cases there are policies that the essay is based on that can be called upon instead. I also think there should be a standardization of how rankings are represented. I have noticed in many of the FA class articles on universities that using info-boxes with no text other than the rank and the ranking organization is the preferred method. This seems like it leads to a more neutral presentation of the situation. Colincbn (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would indeed appear to be one of the few merits of an "infobox". ¶ Rankings and infoboxes aside, any thoughts on lists of famous alumni? -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation for Ugg boots

I've submitted the article for formal mediation here and I've named Gnangarra, Factchk, Bilby, Hoary and myself as the main participants. Others are also welcome to participate. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick heads up

Hi Hoary,

since you haven't added a new comment on your router issue in quite a while, I will stop monitoring your talk page, and assume the problem has been resolved. Since my IP is dynamic (it seems to have a rather long lease time, though), I cannot guarantee that you will be able to reach me via this IP's talk page. Please leave a new message on WP:RD/C should you require further assistance. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; in case you've already changed IP number, I'll point out that I've replied at User talk:78.43.71.155. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Just a quick note to let you know that an issue involving you has come up at ANI. —DoRD (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romaji for letters

Do you think it is pertinent to provide the Japanese pronunciations for letters of the English alphabet as they appear in the titles of (what is in this case) video games and their systems? I had backed down from arguing with Odokee over this matter after the last ANI thread that I had started because of the opposition to this concept that I had been receiving from the uninvolved editors. In short, should Nintendo DSi have in the romanization portion "Nintendō DSi" (the version I self reverted to) or "Nintendō Dī Esu Ai"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar pages: [1], [2], [3], [4].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, I understand the question, but frankly it's something I can't get excited about. If one did do that, then presumably the same logic would require the "spelling out" of numbers: "Nintendo 19", if it existed, would require "Nintendō Jūkyū"; rather a bore for editor and reader, I think. You may with to bring it up at the talk page of WikiProject Japan. -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Super Mario 64's "64" is "Rokujūyon" in Japan.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Do you want to have the article say that? (I wouldn't be against the idea, but I can't summon any enthusiasm for it.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't quite get it. Also he's removed it on another page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing "Afro-Brazilian"

As (legitimately) suggested by you here in "Talk:Afro-Brazilian", Ninguém sourced most or all of the claims that this or that person named in Afro-Brazilian was "black". While I don't claim that he did this as well as anyone might hope, this work by him strikes me as well-intentioned and solid -- and I imagine that it took him a considerable time. On 18 September, you reacted to it with the comment:

these links are more like spam than worthwhile supporting WP:RS for a cited claim of colour and ethnic ancestry

I suppose that this struck him as surprisingly dismissive. (It certainly struck me that way.) He responded:

So which of those authors are spammers, exactly?

I wrote a longer reply on this and also on your comments on the desirability of English sources or translations.

You haven't replied, even though your list of contributions shows that you have found time to edit many other articles. Please return to that talk page and respond there. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he ignored my protestations and my issues with the sourcing and just stuffed the whole load of what to me looked like weakly claimed color identification back in the article, I took that to be the ignoring of my issues and I removed it off my watchlist so as not to get into a war with him, thanks. As we both know there are multiple issues at the Brazilian race articles that have been continuing for over almost a year now. Ethnicity and color claims of identity have clear BLP issues and would need high quality sourcing, which I did not see, anyways, there is some lengthy committed editing there and I will not be drawn into a war over such issues. I removed it when I saw it as I am required to do as an editor, it was replaced, imo with weak claims, excuse me if that is all the energy I have to resist it. Off2riorob (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that every one of these articles (Italian Brazilians, etc etc) starts off with a miniaturized gallery of headshots at the top right. What do you think about these? -- Hoary (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I perhaps wrongly assumed that they would be cited or at least are the strongest most notable people in the genetic or colored group so I did not at the time touch the info boxes, surely they must be cited in the infobox?. I simply was attracted to the large uncited section and moved that to the talkpage. If you provide the links and I look at them and they are weakly cited or opinionated or uncited claims about people identifying them through their colour or weak claims of ethnicity , especially living people I will likely remove them. . Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article provides links. At 22:49, 18 September 2010, you wrote imo these links are more like spam than worthwhile supporting WP:RS for a cited claim of colour and ethnic ancestry. You were describing links that you saw. So which links are more like spam than they are like reliable sources? And (in your latest comment) what do you mean by links being uncited claims? -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for strong reliable citations to support claims of identification of living people by color I did not see it at all. The edits were replaced without care for my concerns, that is enough for me, there has been disruption at all the Brazilian race related articles involving the same users, I got involved once and I am not prepared to get involved again thanks. It will work itself out soon enough. Actually, your comments here and your involvement make me appreciate your comment that you have taken a step back in this area and will no longer use your Administrative weight. Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you chose to reinvolve yourself. The claims are sourced to what are footnotes 79 through 108 of the current version. A large number of them cite this or that specific page within a book titled Enciclopédia brasileira da diáspora africana. Now, is this book insufficiently authoritative for you? If it's OK, then which of the other notes cites something that is not reliable? And which of these is spammy? ¶ You bring up the matter of my involvement. As I see it, my involvement in these articles (on subjects of no interest to me) is to help nudge them in the direction of quality, and fend off attempts to degrade them. This particular article is a mess, I freely admit. You made additional charges against it that surprised me. One was of spamminess. You still have neither explained what you meant by this nor retracted the charge. -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for your claim that you are helping to nudge them in a direction of quality imo looking at the articles that is not reflected in the article and their stability, a good article is a stable article because both sides are represented in the content you are clearly on one side of the editing situation and friendly with that side and so are clearly involved. I simply removed an uncited section and disputed the quality of the citations presented to claim some of the living people are notable because they are black, such notability as regards color claims especially in living people are highly POV and problematic, my concerns were rejected and the content was inserted. Spamming would likely refer to the mass sourcing of a single book of limited notability and authoritativeness itself in another language to claim color notability to living individuals, we have lists or book reviews for that, weakly cited claims of color as a notable factor as regards a living person require the strongest possible citations which this clearly was not. For a simple example of what you are supporting here, Jonny is a notable Black Englishman (add a weak supporting citation here) Off2riorob (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced list of "important or famous Black Brazilians" immediately before you removed it. Sourced list of the same, immediately after it was re-added. They're different: the one had no sources, the other has sources. The sources may be inadequate; this can be discussed. You say: Spamming would likely refer to the mass sourcing of a single book of limited notability and authoritativeness itself in another language to claim color notability to living individuals[...] Spamming was your term; presumably you know what you meant by it. I have never encountered the meaning of the word extended as you have extended it here. (Or do you mean that the multiple citations from it constituted an effort to raise its profile and thus its sales?) You say that the book is of limited notability and authoritativeness itself in another language. That it's in another language is not an issue. That it is of limited notability is not an issue: virtually every academic book (let alone all the other crap) is of limited notability. If it's of limited authoritativeness this would indeed be an issue. Please elaborate. ¶ You say that I am on one side of the editing situation. Recently I have broadly been in favor of what one writer has been explaining on the talk page. Maybe that's one "side". If so, I don't know what the other side is. Can you point me to a lucid exposition by that "side"? ¶ If you have some complaint about my editing, feel free to reopen the discussion on me that is, or very recently was, at WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I bother to discuss it after it was stuffed back in without any care for my good faith objections, cite this for me.. Djavan is a notable black Brazilian. I have said my piece and I am responsible for that alone, others are responsible for their edits and additions. Is that your issue that you claim you are not involved, you commented as such yourself that you have not used your tools for that reason and I support your comment, you are involved with one group and support one position, whats the problem with that? To be honest I find your discussion of this issue pointy indeed and it is going no where, I have commented thats it,. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for drawing my attention to the non-sourcing of the claim for Djavan. Please see what I've written and done about this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Ugg boots, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

GNAA DRV incident

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help!

Thanks for your help with Foulball (block log · checkuser confirmedsuspected) and his spamish articles that are cited on his confirmed category. --Wolfnix • Talk • 02:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say "It's a pleasure", but that wouldn't be true. It's a bore. But only a minor one. I'm glad to be of help. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dilma Rousseff

Hi, Hoary. I am having a small problem in Dilma Rousseff. She is at this moment a candidate in Brazilian presidential elections. In the 1960s and 1970s she was part of a communist group financed by Cuba and the defunct Soviet Union which had as goal the creation of a communist dictatorship. Obviously, that does not mean that she wants that nowadays, in 2010. There is an IP (174.91.175.10) who has as sole purpose the goal of removing that piece of information from her article. He has complained about in the talk page (See Talk:Dilma Rousseff#Revolutionary Dictatorship) and did not bother to bring one single source at all to explain why it should be removed. In other words: he is removing that sourced information ([5]) without sources to back his claim. I've reverted once [6] and he reverted it [7]. I will not revert it a second time and even less a third time. Is there something you could do about it? I am too busy with two articles which I nominated for featured status (Pedro II of Brazil and Pedro Álvares Cabral) and I don't want to lose my time discussing with an unknown IP. Thanks, --Lecen (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't get involved in this one: I'll simply be too busy in the next three days or so to pay attention to WP. But see this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, anyway. I mean it. But it seems that this article will become a new Hugo Chávez. --Lecen (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eletrobras

Hi Hoary

Could you please delete this redirect Eletrobras to open place for move, it redirects the page to the article Eletrobrás (with diacritic), but Portuguese acronym does not have diacritics, and also, in its official website it's written without the diacritic, but I can't move because a bot inserted a template there. Thank you.--Luizdl (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! However, I haven't even started to reduce this long list. Sorry, no time. -- Hoary (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Luizdl (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror image of a picture

Hello Hoary, I was wondering if you could help me out. I need to get a mirror image of a painting I have found of the old Luxembourg fortifications. It's this one. As you can see, it's a beautiful picture but the version I found happens to be the wrong way round. I have seen authentic copies of the original in several art and history books and this one is definitely wrong. The bridge should be on the left hand side. Perhaps with all your photographic expertise you could fix it yourself and upload the result onto Commons for me. Or if not, perhaps you could direct me to some tool that will do the job. It's quite important as I have used it as the lead image on Bock (Luxembourg). Hope you can help. Cheers. - Ipigott (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet looked at the image but glancing at what you say suggests that this will be a doddle. However, no time right now even for doddles. I'll attend to it within 24 hours. -- Hoary (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It took rather over 24 hours to finish the work, return home, and catch up on sleep; but I did it. Here's what you'd have to do:

1. Install Gimp.

I'll assume that you're using either Windows or Linux. If you're using Mac OS X there'd be minor changes to the following:

2. Right-click on the filename and elect to open it with Gimp.
3. Alt-i t h Ctrl-s

Done!

Twenty-eight hours rather than 24, sorry. Of course I knew that this would take mere seconds, but I didn't want to be bothered to go through the rigmarole of answering the questions needed to upload it. However, that turned out to be a lot less arduous than I had misremembered.

Gimp is an excellent program. Its interface takes a bit of getting used to, but Gimp (free) plus a book about it seems to me a better value than Photoshop or similar, and then adding Gimp to any other computer (just about any computer made this century) will cost you nothing extra. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Domo arigato. Great tool. I knew you would come up with something. - Ipigott (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed, I've started to do a bit more on Danish photographers. I think I have run into probems with the photographs of Benedicte Wrensted I've loaded up on Commons here. When I loaded them up, I used the "author died more than 70 yrs ago" licence but now I realise that as she died in 1949, that condition does not yet apply. I suppose that at least the first two (taken in Denmark) should therefore be removed. And I now have doubts about the third one too. Even though it was taken in the States in 1898, it was probably never "published" and therefore might not be outside copyright restrictions. Would you therefore be kind enough to remove all three of them - unless I have misunderstood the rules. - Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, I can't: I'm not an administrator there (and indeed am only the most desultory of contributors). This, perhaps? -- Hoary (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you, Hoary, very much, for your kind words regarding my response to an issue at BLPN. Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion

As you were involved i this issue, I am notifying you of this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 15#Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Darin Fidika. Please participate if you wish. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CURRENTMONTHNAME

Yes thanks, known bug. Caused by a MediaWiki bug. Corrected normally by SmackBot on the fly but since SmackBot is under interdiction for changing {{silicate-mineral-stub}} to {{Silicate-mineral-stub}} needs me to clean up after manually. Rich Farmbrough, 11:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Robert Whitaker

Hi Hoary - just had a look back at the Bob Whitaker article and I like your suggestion. I think it's an important photo, culturally, so I'd hate to see all that material just deleted, but I agree the broader discussion of the photo's own 'career' isn't all that relevant to Bob's actual life and career, so yeah, I think that would be great. Thanks.

Dunks (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baker

Hi. Thanks for the fix at Baker's article.

Tangentially: I'd forgotten how he arrived on my watchlist; so after following the talkpage explanation, I had the chance to review my handful of interactions with him at User talk:Wageless. Ha! This is still one of my favourite edits. We need more of that around here. :)

Best, -- Quiddity (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Colegrove

There have been crazy things going on here that have become epic to say the least. I can't tell from where things are comming from but it's everything, copyright, harrassment, stalking who knows what else. I don't think WP will suffer any blow back but I and a few others sure have.

Even though this is not my real name I was even contacted by my old boss and reminded that I had signed papers to keep me quiet a few years back!

Is there anything I can do to extract myself from WP?Myraedison (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been deleted so all should be well. But if you notice any more silliness, do please let me know. -- Hoary (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say it went far beyond silliness. One of the sites used as a reference for Daniel Colegrove stored pages and documents for many other buried journalism stories. They began getting threats of all kinds from every direction so rather than deal with it they packed up and left the Internet. Not good, they were a valuable resource for some things and may have been referenced here a lot. Myraedison (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian photography

I feel we should leave the categories as such for now.Creating new sub categories may be case of over categorisation. We should wait for some months before revising this . However if you feel strongly please go ahead.Thanks Shyamsunder (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well . . . OK. (Meanwhile, isn't it odd that there are fewer people in Category:Indian photographers than in Category:Photographers from New York?) -- Hoary (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hoary&oldid=393441141"