User talk:Hoary

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 probably reply here.

• Archive 1 (13 Nov 2004 to 23 Feb 2005)
• Archive 2 (24 Feb 2004 to 27 May 2005)
• Archive 3 (29 May 2005 to 17 Sep 2005)
• Archive 4 (18 Sep 2005 to 9 Nov 2005)
• Archive 5 (13 Nov 2005 to 22 May 2006)
• Archive 6 (23 May 2006 to 4 Oct 2006)
• Archive 7 (6 Oct 2006 to 25 Nov 2006)
• Archive 8 (26 Nov 2006 to 8 Jan 2007)
• Archive 9 (6 Jan 2007 to 8 Feb 2007)
• Archive 10 (8 Feb 2007 to 4 Apr 2007)
• Archive 11 (5 Apr 2007 to 22 May 2007)
• Archive 12 (27 May 2007 to 28 July 2007)
• Archive 13 (22 July 2007 to 28 August 2007)
• Archive 14 (28 August 2007 to end 2007)
• Archive 15 (Jan–Mar 2008)

Photo uploaded

I think I uploaded a photo of me, Image:Nicholson Baker - headshot.jpg, to the Wikimedia commons. Thanks for your help.--Wageless (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hello, I've just this morning traversed Eurasia, turned on my computer, and seen your message for the first time. Sorry I didn't see it (let alone respond) earlier, but it seems that the photo has been fixed up in the meantime so all is well. Feel free to ask me for help in the future, though. -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Pixilated

Judging by your discussion with Bzuk, I'd have to agree with you about "pixilated" and Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. Allowing an editor to speculate upon the origins of the word in the article itself rather than on the discussion page does seem a little out of line. The involved editors became so incensed about the anon posting his opinion of whether or not there is a 666 in the movie, they overshot their mark some. So, good job eradicating a trouble spot!--76.245.122.159 (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Mitsutarō Fuku

Hi, I removed the tag questioning the notability of Fuku but the references appear a bit messy (which I may have contributed to). Since you're the user who added them I think it'd be good if you verify them and if possible make them consistent. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've done a quick semi-fix.

Your edit summary to this diff suggests an interest in Japanese photography (and not merely in the five or so people who are rather improbably stars outside Japan). If so, that's excellent news. The state of articles on Japanese photographers in en:WP is dreadful: some months ago, somebody's bloody bot created hundreds of substubs that have deceptively blued what had been perfectly decent redlinks. Take a look at this and the number of items within it that are still marked "BGSS". You'd be very welcome to turn any of these into actual articles, or even just into stubs that are worth looking at.

Hmm, it's time for me to give Pinkville another nudge. He's done excellent work on 19th-century photographers of Japan, but I haven't noticed much recently. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Remarkable coincidence that I was expanding the articles mentioned below while this discussion was happening! :~) I have some additions to make in "our" field over the next while, so at least a few more of the BGSS should become more substantial... Pinkville (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

SS Suzuki

Hmm, my ears are burning... As you see, I'm adding material (I have much to add) to the Suzuki articles as well as some of their related articles, but it's rather complicated, with much contradictory or confusing data... Bear with me, I'll come back to this over the next couple of days... Pinkville (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The best news I've read in a long time!

Just two weeks ago I saw Bennett's book for the first time, at Narita airport. However, buying it at full price (plus Japanese margin) on my way out of Japan and carrying it around SE England for ten days and thence back to Narita really seemed too silly. Plus I'm running out of floor space for piles of books. I've asked the library to get it. If all that fails, I'm afraid I may have to resort to Amazon. -- Hoary (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! I've sent you an email. Pinkville (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I've got the (most amicable) email and am now thinking it over (or "mulling" it as the IHT would say). -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably say "mulling", but I'd be thinking about the wine... Pinkville (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bennett gives Suzuki I's original name as: Takahashi Yujirō. Is this a possible reading of 高橋真一 ? Pinkville (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I overlooked this question. I can hardly believe that it can, no; but I'll ask the missus to be sure. -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. Further, and regardless of the particular kanji, "Yujirō" is rather implausible: isn't "Yūjirō" what was meant? -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bennett irritatingly doesn't use macrons, so I always have to guess. Yūjirō is undoubtedly what is meant. Still no resolution to the name confusion... Pinkville (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

People did like changing their names back then. Two names for the same person? (By far the most obvious reading of 真一 is Shin'ichi, though alternatives are possible. Indeed, I've a hunch that back then a name was essentially its written form, pronounced in whatever vaguely plausible way the family or holder wanted, and perhaps alterable to taste. And no, Yūjirō isn't plausible. But this really isn't my field.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And I don't know where Bennett got "Yujiro" from... I'll see if I can figure it out. Pinkville (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done what I need to at the moment, but you might want to have a look again at Suzuki I in case I accidentally erased any of your edits. Pinkville (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Now Suzuki II is "done"... merely waiting for your (and other?) corrections. Pinkville (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

S II turned out to be a much more interesting figure than I expected! I plan to tackle Fuku and Shimooka soon... The latter has some truly confounding name issues... Pinkville (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Junk freedom

I welcome your comments on the Contemporary Music project about (bio) infoboxes. These are discouraged on the other mainstream (classical) music projects - Composers, Classical Music and Opera (and it sub projects) - I hope we won't have them on Contemporary Music either. Berst regards, --Kleinzach (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. I spent five minutes wondering whether or not to post. The proponents of "infoboxes" are so full of themselves that I've been warned in all seriousness not to reason, even politely, against infoboxes on rather somnolent project to which I'm a regular participant because doing so might be just the thing to incite their proponents to boss people around. I got into a bit of a rumpus about this as a visitor to yet another project here (continuation here); I don't think I was very persuasive, but I think my comments did have a minor positive effect and I found a kindred spirit in User:Orlady. -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Right - I haven't read through the universities debate in detail but it seems to be a typical infobox debate! I can direct you to acres of them that we have had on Composers, Classical Music and Opera, however in each case an overwhelming majority of editors have been against using Biographical infoboxes. You can see the policy guidelines we have here, here and here.

However I should emphasize that we are not against navigation boxes or infoboxes for geographical and quantitative data where they can be preferable to putting data in paragraphs of text - our opposition is to their use for people. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

People, ugh . . . try this for a sample edit, merely duplicating what's anyway immediately adjacent (and arguably is relatively trivial) and aggravating this with visual junk asking for a mugshot. I suppose if that article can be degraded in that way then so can any of my articles. Grr.

A professional archaeologist, well well. I'm terribly ignorant of this; I only learned the name Nagaoka-kyō last week. -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We've had some hilarious infoboxes in the past - I should have kept them. BTW I'm in Hokkaido now. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope the weather up there isn't as dismal as it is here in Tokyo. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a tick

Take a look at Talk:William Desmond Taylor and User talk:Cleo123. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. How about Image:WORLDHEALTH2.png and its deletion debate? -- Hoary (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, yes my jaw did drop. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whew. The word I'd been searching for was "batshit". -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC) ...... PS and if you're in the mood for odd XfDs, try this one. -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd fits. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And look where he shows up. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here too! -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

imput? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wotton House

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wotton House, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.net-encyclo.com/en/Wotton_Underwood. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ha ha, I ripped it off from Wotton Underwood. I imagine that this net-encyclo.com thing is yet another commercial scrape of en:WP. -- Hoary (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bleh. Those seem a dime a dozen nowadays. Added to the list, it shouldn't pop up anymore. — Coren ^(talk) 12:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Kuwabara

I have left quite a few responses to this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

the excellent results of infoboxes

Here's a particularly fine example... (I assume the space is for notes.) Pinkville (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

dates again

still, only assholes bitch about this sort of thing. I'm glad we went over it. Have you ever read ayn rand? Lovely tis she not?ILike2BeAnonymous-talk 10:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, IL!ke2BAn0nym0us. You're history. -- Hoary (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Harajuku

Deletions were completely explained as POV and were referenced with unacceptable sources. Try reading the edit summary. This article was vandalized back in February after various editors fixed the article last year. 220.253.28.41 (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summaries do not explain. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been reported for your actions. 220.253.28.41 (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, that sounds exciting. Where? -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not "reported" Hoary to to any higher authority, also note that he is an administrator so try presenting your point rather than engaging in confrontational behaviour, especially since he holds all of the cards. James086^{Talk | Email} 06:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm open to rational persuasion. The persuasion should be presented on the article's talk page, where my opinions about the article (and I have some) should attract the same scrutiny as anybody else's. Meanwhile, removing stuff from the article, even stuff you (or perhaps I) don't like, counts as vandalism. -- Hoary (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Since petty argument is over. Is it acceptable to blank my talk page, so future user of IP does not be exposed to someone else issue? 220.253.28.41 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)