Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:23, 19 April 2015

Misplaced Pages needs WebCite.

WebCite needs money.

So give WebCite your money.

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.

Archives

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) Archive 16 (Apr–Jun 2008) Archive 17 (Jul–Sep 2008) Archive 18 (Oct–Dec 2008) Archive 19 (Jan–Mar 2009) Archive 20 (Apr–Jun 2009) Archive 21 (Jul–Sep 2009) Archive 22 (Oct–Dec 2009) Archive 23 (Jan–Mar 2010) Archive 24 (Apr–Jul 2010) Archive 25 (Aug–Dec 2010) Archive 26 (Jan–Jun 2011) Archive 27 (Jul–Dec 2011) Archive 28 (2012) Archive 29 (2013) Archive 30 (2014)

Global account

Hi Hoary! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello DerHexer, thank you for your trouble.

Well, this is a somewhat complex business. I'd forgotten all about a number of those accounts, but anyway logged into as many as I could and for each changed its PW to the one I use here. Nine (or so) are now "attached" to this account. Nine more are ready to be "attached": I've tried to attach them three or four times but each time have been greeted by "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem"; I'll try it again later.

Just two are still problematic:

• nl.wikipedia.org
• it.wikipedia.org

Sorry, I've lost the password for each, and didn't supply an email address for either. Neither has had more than token use so I don't mind if it's renamed out of the way in April. If you have a better suggestion, I'm all ears.

After I'd realized I'd lost the PW for nl:WP, I created and made slight use of the UID "Hoary.again". I don't intend to use it again, and if I can regain control of "Hoary" at nl:WP, I won't use it again. It's a global account. You may wish to render it unusable (e.g. by giving it a new PW that you won't divulge to me). -- Hoary (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

PS @DerHexer: Special:MergeAccount hasn't been working (for me) for hours: same old error message citing a server problem. -- Hoary (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just forwarding this server issue to people in charge. After merging your local accounts, I can easily usurp the nlwiki account as it has no visible edits. The itwiki account can be merged with your global account as its single only edit refers to your enwiki account, a developer will insert your email address so that you can request a new passwort. Once the account merge tool will be available by approximately late January 2015, stewards could easily even merge your both accounts. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@DerHexer: Thank you, but I'm still stuck at the early stage. What I could easily do very very roughly 24 hours ago but not very very roughly 12 hours ago, I still can't do, instead being told:

Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.

If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below.

Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:MergeAccount&action=submit, from via cp1066 cp1066 (]:3128), Varnish XID 1847728130

Forwarded for:

Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Sat, 03 Jan 2015 23:21:26 GMT

This had gone on so long that I thought I'd report it (I mean, complete with IP numbers). Phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/create/ says: "You can use your unified Wikimedia account or your Labs/LDAP user to login." I wishfully ignored the "unified" part, logged in via Wikimedia, and was told: "To use Connected Apps on this site, you must have an account across all projects. When you have an account on all projects, you can try to connect 'phabricator-production' again."

Oh well, I'll try again tomorrow. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@DerHexer: I tried Special:MergeAccount about 12 hours ago; I was told that "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem". I tried it a few minutes ago; I was told that "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem". Something is wrong: is it with the servers or with me? -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

From my quick investigation it looks like you're running into phab:T78727. Legoktm (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Legoktm: Thank you, but I shall have to consume at least one more coffee before tackling that page and attempting to work the implications for me of what it says..... Hoary (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The simplified version is that for some reason the server is running out of memory while trying to merge your accounts, so it fails. There's currently an update planned which should resolve the issue, I'll let you know when that is deployed so you can try again. Legoktm (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The server and me ... we seem to have something in common. Thank you for your help! -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Our developers deployed a bug fix that might solve your issues. Could you please try again and tell us if it improved? :-) Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 01:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@DerHexer: Thank you for trying to help, but alas no:

Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:MergeAccount&action=submit, from via cp1066 cp1066 (]:3128), Varnish XID 2370590536

Forwarded for:

Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Fri, 09 Jan 2015 06:45:53 GMT

-- Hoary (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just had another patch deployed which should help to make this problem less severe. It would be nice, if you could try it again, but I sadly can't guarantee you anything. -Hoo man (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A bottle of good beerA bottle of good beerA bottle of good beerThank you very much, DerHexer, Legoktm and Hoo man. Well done. Now, take a seat; I've opened one of these for each of you.@Hoo man: Aha, this time it is different. No error message from the server. Instead, I'm told that my accounts at el.wikipedia.org (which I'd forgotten all about), nl.wikipedia.org and it.wikipedia.org still need a password. I can't provide it -- actually, them, because I've mislaid them. So I'm told that "Login unification not complete!" A thought occurs to me: "not complete" in which way? So I tried going to be.wikipedia.org (to which I've never before logged in) and logging in there in just the same way as I'd log in to en.wikipedia.org. It worked! -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I've usurped the elwiki and nlwiki account according to m:Usurpation policy as they had no visible edits. I could do the same but as the only itwiki edit directly links to your enwiki account, so that it might be more senseful to ask Hoo man to insert your email address which will allow you to request a new passwort on itwiki and merge it with your global account by submitting the new password on it:Special:MergeAccount as well. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Did that, you can now request a new password for your it.wikipedia account on it:Speciale:CambiaPassword. After that you can go back to Special:MergeAccount and merge that account with your global account. - Hoo man (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried it and received no error message. But I also haven't yet received any email. Perhaps mail will be waiting for me when I wake up. -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Odd BLP

Perhaps an admin should look at this: Shina Animashaun, supposedly a 21-year old "philanthropist" founds a school in London. Trouble is that one of the sources shows his name at attending some school (OK?), the other two discuss the founding of the school but do not mention his name. So I reckon this as zero evidence, and PROD it. The IP has come back and removed the PROD... ? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

But an admin wouldn't do anything with it that a non-admin wouldn't. I think that the article on this person (Esq) should go to AfD. I'd send it there myself if I weren't busy juggling my various accounts (see the section immediately above) and if my computer were in a mood to display Flash or whatever it is that one of the three claimed sources is using. As for the other two "sources", if you were to send this to AfD then be sure to point out that neither even mentions this person. Also google for him, just in case he is written up elsewhere (which I think unlikely). -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

PS I notice that the boilerplate that you added to the user talk page reads in part "Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced." The author removed it even though the article wasn't sourced. So an admin probably could do something about this. But since the article does assert notability (incredibly, but still...), and since it doesn't look remotely libellous, it's better to be cautious. Just be sure to start off the AfD with a statement that explains enough: an extra ten minutes invested in this can save thirty minutes in responses to later questions. -- Hoary (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Those edits were getting annoying. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Though I enjoyed the edits, I also thank you. Their star shone too bright to last. DOCUMENT★ERROR 14:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

PDFTT. -- Hoary (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Suspect vandalism

See this diff -- the user just got warned for vandalism. I know nothing about this band etc etc etc, but seems to me there's a high probability this is also vandalism. I don't have time or patience to investigate: should I (1) revert anyway (2) revert and put note on talk page or (3) something else. Grateful for suggestions. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm very sleepy, and therefore may be missing something. While I note that this editor (i) provides no explanation for his changes of numbers and (ii) has repeatedly been warned about vandalism before, his changes appear to bring the text in line with the content of the tables in the same article. Perhaps the tabular material is not what it at first seems, and I could investigate that ... but my bed is more inviting. -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Redlinked photographers

Well, I was going to settle in this evening with my mathematical bibliographies, but then I found this.

Yeah, we could stand having an article on Gianni Berengo Gardin.

Thanks for the to-do list.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Glad you like what you see! Here's another excellent photo by the man.

But please, no stub. Article, yes; stub, no. -- Hoary (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Initial notes are here: User talk:Lesser Cartographies/sandbox/Gianni Berengo Gardin. Can you wrangle a couple of photographs into commons? Or tell me how to deal with the copyright issues? Thanks, Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, they're only initial notes, aren't they? Initial notes for a Featured Article, it would seem. Only a year's worth of work to be done!

No, really, excellent. Thank you very much.

I normally start my own articles on photographers with a list of books. The list is useful in itself; it looks impressive (and tends to scare away would-be senders to AfD); and the sources don't have to be specified. Then I move on to exhibitions: the list might be useful, and it usually brings an impressive number of references (which tend to scare away ditto). Then, if my stamina suffices, I start to think about the meat of the article. (For David Goldblatt, it didn't suffice. And I know he's had a bunch of additional books and exhibitions since March 2011, when I started my "short break" from editing there.)

Right then, books. I know GBG has put out quite a lot. Proto-article sez:

Of his 250 published books. . . .

Holy freedom fries. This calls for a different approach.

How would you like to proceed? (Perhaps: You and me edit in your sandbox till the result looks like an article, and then I move it to article space?)

Oh, your question. In short, no. For a photo to be in Commons, it would have to be copyleft (example). That would be hard to accomplish. If a particular photo were discussed within the article, then a small JPEG of it could be uploaded here, citing "fair use". See this as an example (though I'm surprised that such a large JPEG is permissible). -- Hoary (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the example of a fair use rationale. That's exactly what I needed. And many thanks for the kind words.

I didn't have any expectation that you'd be helping out, but I'd be more than happy to have any time and expertise you can spare.

I'm going to be hitting a couple of good university research libraries over the next week and will hopefully be able to add some material that google missed. I'm afraid, though, that nearly all of the useful material is going to be in Italian, which I do not read. Still, let's run with it and see what happens.

I like the idea of generating the bibliography and I am competent to manually scrape worldcat to get most of them. Let's get as close to 250 as we can into the proto-article and then discuss whether we should break out a separate bibliography article once the main article goes live.

I don't have much of a clue as to how to verify individual exhibitions, so if you're looking for a place to dive in I'll leave that to you. (I expect the books will be referring to exhibitions and exhibitions will be referring to books, so I'm not expecting this to be silo'd efforts.)

Looking forward to collaborating with you.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's get as close to 250 as we can into the proto-article: gods no, unless you have preternatural reserves of time and energy. How about starting with what's already in the notes, and scraping Worldcat for more in English only (perhaps in Italian too). -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

<grin> One of my ongoing projects is a bibliography of Paul Erdos. His main published bibliography listed 1525 publications. I managed to dig up ~300 more. I'm now reconciling the published bibliography with what I was able to dig out of Zentralblatt MATH and Mathematical Reviews. When I took a break I was trying to figure out how to write a BibTeX to UTF8 translator in Lua. (Did you know that wikimedia's software can't deal with 1500 {{cite journal}} templates? I didn't either...) So yeah, 250 books is a walk in the park.... 250 books shouldn't be in the biographical article, but a bibliographical article on him would make a nice featured list..... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

BibTex to UTF8? My head's threatening to explode. (Do you perhaps mean BibTex to Mediawiki?) Yes, I have experienced template breakdown, but nothing so baronial. So OK, let's go walkies in the park. I love the idea of a Featured List of books by somebody only 0.1% of our readers will ever have heard of. It could be one small blow against idiocracy, even. -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I ♥ "baronial". Commence walkies. (I go back and forth between having the BibTeX bibliography entries live in Module Space and translating them as they're rendered, or doing the translation once on my laptop and cut 'n' pasting the results. Having a lua lexer/parser in mediawiki means that lots of other people can start using BibTeX in articles. Writing the damn thing in python on my laptop means that I can start using it much, much sooner. But since there's this new shiny toy over here, I'll put off that decision a little longer.) Side note: tomorrow is going to be mostly grant-writing and powerpoint-barfing, Monday is travel, and Tuesday is presenting + looting Powell's bookstore in Portland. Walkies may be delayed until Wednesday evening. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Big rush now, but just two notes: Gardin has so many books out, he has a book out devoted to his books. (More details on this a bit later.) This cannot be said for many photographers. (Araki has two devoted to his books.) ¶ A photobook by Gardin will very shortly be on its way to me. -- Hoary (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm at UOregon and have pretty much struck out—only five books in the stacks. What's the bibliographical book that you found? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The GBG photobook-book is:

Bruno Carbone, ed. Gianni Berengo Gardin. Il libro dei libri. Rome: Contrasto DUE, 2013. ISBN 9788869654442.

Incidentally, the it:WP article about GBG, in common with other Italian-language sources I've seen, refers to him not as "Gardin" but as "Berengo Gardin".

Percentagewise, your library is infinitely better than mine (whose OPAC shows zero hits). I peeked into your OPAC:

• Le isole della laguna di Venezia: guida alla città di Venezia / Gianni Berengo-Gardin; Venezia Italy: Edizioni L'Altra Riva; ©1988
• Viaggio in Toscana

• Gianni Berengo-Gardin; Giorgio Soavi 1923-; Venezia, Alfieri Edizione d'Arte; 1967
• Giorgio Soavi 1923-; Gianni Berengo-Gardin illustrator; Firenze, Marchi e Bertolli; 1967

• Pierluca. / Giuseppe Marchiori; Venezia, Alfieri; 1967
• Il Campo: il senso di una piazza / Mauro Civai; Giovanni Santi; Siena: Protagon editori toscani; c2003
• Leopardi: la biblioteca, la casa, l'infinito: fotografie di Gianni Berengo Gardin / Gianni Berengo-Gardin; Maria Perosino; Verucchio Rimini: P.G. Pazzini; 2006
• Castelli e fortificazioni / Aurelio Natali; Gianni Berengo-Gardin illustrator; Milano: Touring club italiano; 1974

(Some may not be on the stacks, of course.) I wonder why Pierluca pops up. (A mere glitch?) And two Italian publishers of Viaggio in Toscana in the same one year? Intriguing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Il libro dei libri is $50 on Amazon. I'll check Powell's in Portland tomorrow and if they don't have it I'll go ahead and order it. (Worldcat shows a copy at Stanford, but that's a ways away from my stomping grounds. Nice catch, btw! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No, please don't (unless the copy at Powell's is remaindered or of course if it actually appeals to you as non-editor). I expect to have access to a copy myself within a few weeks. The book that's definitely on its way to me is this one, or rather the English-language version thereof (whose external design seems very similar). ¶ GBG has an odd kind of fame in the anglosphere, it seems. In a few books he receives very high praise (which seem to be justified by what I've seen in little JPEGs); but in others he doesn't appear at all. No mention of him in the index of Michel Frizot, ed, A New History of Photography (Cologne: Könemann, 1998) (a huge and excellent book), for example. -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC) .... PS he's "Gardin, Gianni Berengo" in the Oxford Companion to the Photograph; and some person called "Gianni Berengo" gets a single passing mention in the third edition (!) of Naomi Rosenblum's famed A World History of Photography. -- Hoary (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Note to self: probably a good idea to make a record of books consulted that were not useful as well as the ones that were. Should be at Powell's in a few hours, and now I'll be browsing their references works as well as GBG's own. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll start to build such a list at the foot of the embryonic article. But in the meantime: I haven't consulted any book about Italian photography in general, and don't think I have access to a copy of any such book (unless I decide to buy it, of course). If you see such a book, you might take a look within. I don't think you'll find much within any history or encyclopedia of photography in general. (The reason I looked at a number of such books was that they were anyway close at hand.) ¶ This edit was a sorry loss, I think. -- Hoary (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Struck out on the Portland trip. One page in one book in Powell's, and the book had no copyright page and worldcat doesn't know about it. Nothing in the city library or the Portland Museum library. Deeply strange.... In other news, I prefer using the {{cite book}} template; if this makes you break out in a rash, we can talk. There's also several competing efforts around the idea of regularizing identification, and I think the French National library had collected the several ways GBG was identified in these several systems. I know nothing at all about how enWP deals with this, but once I track down the link again I'll copy the data over and we can discuss. And now, sadly, back to grant writing.... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fully in favor of the notion of "Cite" templates as aids toward later reformatting and a semantic web, but I greatly dislike them in practice: (i) Their current implementation inverts the order of western names, for no purpose than I can think of (other perhaps than to look mildly rebarbative). I mean, fine, "Marx, Karl" in an alphabetically ordered list; but why in a list that is not alphabetically ordered? (ii) It's hard or impossible to add complications within them (e.g. inserting "Illm" templates, or alternative scripts), (iii) they're so damn bulky that editing around them is a pain. However, I'm pretty much accustomed to them, and when for example I augment an article written by my learned friend Lopifalko that has them, I add "Cite" templates of my own (while gnashing my teeth). ¶ Well, I'm deeply disappointed in Portland, one of a number of US cities I enjoy reading about (latest installment). -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to report that {{illm}} now works to at least a limited degree:

• Lastname, Firstname (1899). "MyTitle". Réalités: 1001–2002.

For the moment I'm going to use them in the bibliography, with the understanding that they're a tool and not a religious commitment. Feel free to continue to add entries in non-template formats. (That illm thing is pretty cool. So is authority control, which is another new discovery this evening. Good times.) Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This draft is chugging along fairly well. What say we aim to launch it when it reaches 100 kB? -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the difference between a slur and a phrase mark?

Well, I think this is a slur -- you said: "Japanese units of mass/weight ". No, I don't think you have any evidence that Basil Hall Chamberlain for one, me for another, and lots of other sensible people do not understand the difference between mass and weight. I got an A (I hope I remember correctly) in A-level applied maths, which involves doing all sorts of calculations with the weight of an object as a force acting on it, and with the mass of the object making the F=ma equation work to give you the right answer. But when making a cake, I check the weight of the ingredients. For ordinary purposes, unless you are going to the moon, weight and mass are interchangeable, and it is customary to talk of "Weights and measures". There seems to be a recent trend towards believing that if children are taught to say 'mass' instead of 'weight' this will somehow make the world better. I don't believe it. (Interestingly, most modern weighing devices do indeed measure weight, not mass, don't they?) Sorry, this is an irrelevance really, the important thing is, um, the, um, I've quite forgotten where I was, and I am still not sure if there is any difference between a slur and a phrase mark. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I too got an A (I hope ditto) in A-level applied maths. Back in the Showa period. To elaborate -- just in case this page is being observed by some Very Solemn Persons -- I mean no disrespect to Japanese people past or present, or to any metrologist ditto, or to scientists ditto. Of course Cardarelli knows the distinction very well, and Meiji-period Japanese scientists did ... but I rather doubt that people using the term 匁 did. (Though yes, scientists who knew the distinction very well and observed it during their work might have ignored it when sitting with a carpenter using 匁 to discuss construction work for family purposes.) The names in the Chinese article 質量對重量 suggest that the Japanese took these terms from China -- no it doesn't; that was a joke: but it would be handy, would it not, if there were something like the OED for Japanese, so that one could quickly see roughly when various usages started (and also, though irrelevantly here, etymologies created by skilled lexicographers rather than by well-meaning recyclers of myth and "common sense". -- Hoary (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The statmho

I also got an 'A' in physics, but these various schemes for cgs units just make my head spin. Could you be a dearie, and look in your Cardarelli for what he says, exactly, about statmho. I think this might be a verifiable bit of "bogus precision", which would be useful. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Statmho. Cardarelli also provides an entry for each of "symbol", "physical quantity", "dimension", "notes, definitions, other conversion factors" (which for this includes no other conversion factor), and "system", but I don't bother to reproduce these. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Time for a move

If it's just me working on an article, keeping the talk page for source material and the article page for drafts might work, but I think that's proving unworkable for collaboration. I've moved the article to Draft:Gianni Berengo Gardin, which will give us a talk page. See you there! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You are just running rings around me....

I may be reduced to cheerleading at the GBG article.

Ummm....

Go! Go! Go!

(Nice work. Really.)

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Give me three more days in the week, and I could get this done a lot quicker. But unfortunately I'll have to go slow, as I'm behind in the (entirely unrelated) work for which I'm paid a salary. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No hope of returning anytime soon, but my boss as agreed to let me cut my travel by 2/3rds and so I'm holding out hope that I'll be back eventually. (You know you're traveling too much when free trips to India and Germany seem like chores to be endured.) I did want to tell you, though, that the GBG article is looking damn amazing. You're doing a great job, and you're setting the bar for future bibliographies much higher than I had ever hoped to see. Keep up the great work, and leave a few punctuation errors for me to clean up, ok? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Dunno about business travel. I love to travel on my terms, but my employers' terms are so utterly different that I'd rather stay where I am even if my time here is spent on the most boring of chores. So even though the opportunities are rare, I try to avoid eye-contact when they do come up. Perhaps your free trips are similar. ¶ Unfortunately the rings that I'm running, whether or not around you, are being run ever more slowly, as my own salaried, staying-where-I-am chores mount up. Still, I'm determined to continue running. Another month or two, and this one part of the article should be pretty well complete. (Whereupon there'll only be the rest of the article.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Reply

I found that article to comply with Misplaced Pages policy so I bypassed the salt. Lets make it clear that I am within my rights to do what I'm doing. You are not the sole administrator that decides who is worthy of contribution. I hope that you will realize that Misplaced Pages continued success depends on independent editors such as my self. AFC is NOT a admin only task, you may put policy around your script, but not around the task itself. If you have a issue with that I suggest you seek the creation of a new usergroup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynctekrua (talk • contribs) 08:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

AAVE

I wasn't sure I entirely believed him anyway. By the way, I was going to duplicate the footnote found at ebonics (word) into the AAVE lede that states "For linguists' reasons for this avoidance, see for example Green (2000:7–8)." Is that a typo on the date or are we missing a reference? — Ƶ§œš¹ 05:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't either. ¶ Good question: your suspicions are correct. I've fixed the mistake. Incidentally, that article includes this description: "and thus merely an alternative term for AAVE". This now strikes me as unnecessarily vague, and possibly misleading. What I think is meant, and what I'd prefer to say, is "and thus shares its referent with AAVE". (I mean, "North Korea" and the "DPRK" share the same referent, but only in certain senses of "meaning" can they be said to have the same "meaning": the former hints at renunciation of any claim to the southern half; the latter makes some sort of claim for democracy and of-the-people-ness.) However, referent isn't an everyday word, and perhaps I'm being too pernickety. I'd guess that if I wrote "refers to the same thing as does AAVE" (easier to understand), somebody would consider it wordy and "fix" it. Thoughts? -- Hoary (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think "refers to the same thing as (does) AAVE" would accomplish that parsing without sounding too strange to lay readers. — Ƶ§œš¹ 17:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ikeda

Two questions, please, re: https://en.wikipedia.org/Daisaku_Ikeda

Hi Hoary,

Thank you very much for all your help.

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/Daisaku_Ikeda

1) I had made this edit:

According to <ref name=murata />, Toda admitted to hitting the priest "once or twice"'; this accusation is disputed and there is no record of any charges filed against Toda. Ikeda later referred to the incident as an "act of kindness" because "the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka Gakkai and died a happy man."<ref name=murata />

Shortly thereafter, catflap08 reverted this to its previous text, Ikeda, who admitted to hitting the priest "once or twice" later referred to the incident as an "act of kindness" because "the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka Gakkai and died a happy man."<ref name=murata />

a) Text of Murata reads, "Toda admitted hitting the priest 'twice' ..." That is, my edit accurately reflected the text of Murata. Hence the my history comment "Update Ogasawara section to match Murata pp. 96-97"

b) Indisputably, this accusation is disputed, as seen on https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda

c) Is this a better edit for this section (given that Murata names Toda, not Ikeda, in the text)?

According to <ref name=murata />, Toda admitted to hitting the priest "once or twice"'; this accusation is disputed and there does not seem to be a record of any charges filed against Toda. Ikeda later referred to the incident as an "act of kindness" because "the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka Gakkai and died a happy man."<ref name=murata />

2) I had inserted a fairly lengthy quotation from Rosa Parks, "American Civil Rights pioneer Rosa Parks chose as her favorite photo one of her meeting with Ikeda in 1993. She explained that “This photograph is about the future and I can’t think of a more important moment in my life. ..."

Catflap08 removed the entire quotation, referencing "https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery"

Does that stylistic guideline mean that none of the published quotation from Mrs. Parks in Kismaric, Carole and Heiferman, Marvin. "Talking Pictures: People Speak about the Photographs that Speak to Them." San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1994. ISBN 0-08118-0382-1) is usable in the article?

Thank you very much for your guidance on these questions.

Starrynuit (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

2015.02.05

Greetings again,

Thank you very much for your followup on my questions.

I do hope all goes very well.

Please help me understand the best way to proceed with the repeated misquoting of Murata ()

As indicated in my previous communication, text of Murata reads, "Toda admitted hitting the priest 'twice' ..."

Today, catflap08 added a reference to the article: Google Books (http://books.google.ca/books?id=x8QKAAAAYAAJ) http://books.google.ca/books?id=x8QKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA96&img=1&pgis=1&dq=admitted+hitting&sig=ACfU3U3GLP8B07Kd_i38YEDfKjxJ61cWzw&edge=0

That Google Books link indeed reads "Toda admitted hitting the priest 'twice' ..."

Montgomery () states "What happens is not clear. According to Ikeda, Toda reasoned calmly with Ogasawara, demanding an apology, while the old man 'drooled at the mouth' and 'howled like a rabid dog.' But Murata claims that Toda told him in an interview that he struck the priest 'twice' ( 96)."

Why then does the article itself read '"Ikeda, who admitted to hitting the priest "once or twice"' while referencing this same page from Murata, which clearly has "Toda" rather than "Ikeda"?

By the way, Ikeda, in The Human Revolution, vol. 6, from which much of Montgomery's account of this incident seems to be derived, states that Ogasawara himself kicked Toda twice.

Why does the article itself read "Ikeda and Toda headed a group of 4,000 men" when Murata (p. 96) and Montgomery (p. 186) both state that Toda headed the group. Murata p. 96 states that Toda led the group and then says on p. 97 that Ikeda led the group; that is, Murata seems to contradict himself on this point.

Thank you so much for your guidance on these questions.

Starrynuit (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Ikeda, in The Human Revolution, vol. 6, pages 710-711, writes that Toda never struck Ogasawara; in fact, Toda said "Stop! Don't hurt him. This vile fellow is not worth beating. Leave him alone." after Ogasawara kicked Toda the first time. After Ogasawara kicked him the second time, Toda left the room and then warned the youth division leader Seki, '"Don't harm Kasahara , Seki."'

Thank you very much again.

Starrynuit (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

1. ^ Murata, Kiyoaki (1969). Japan's new Buddhism: an objective account of Soka Gakkai (. ed.). New York: Weatherhill. pp. 96–97. ISBN 978-0834800403.
2. Montgomery, Daniel B. (1991). Fire in the Lotus: The Dynamic Buddhism of Nichiren. London: Mandala. ISBN 978-1852740917.
3. Ikeda, Daisaku (2004). The Human Revolution. Santa Monica, California: World Tribune Press. ISBN 0-915678-77-2.

I've fiddled with the article a little, and put up a question on its talk page. I'm watching it and will notice any response. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your conscientious efforts. Best wishes,

Starrynuit (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! .... added at 15:37, 6 February 2015‎ by Catflap08

Invitation to Participate in a WikiProject Study

Hello Hoary,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Misplaced Pages. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

205.175.97.53 (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

topic ban

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Relax, it´s humbug and a WP:Boomerang. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, JimRenge. "Humbug" is a much underused word: bullshit is crude (and overextended) in comparison. (A boomerang made of humbug, hmm.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

As requested

The de-sysopping, topic banning and relegation to the seventh circle of hell will have to be done by someone else unfortunatley as i left the keys to those doors at work. Amortias (T)(C) 01:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy! -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You might want to keep an eye out for The Spanish Inquisiton as your unlikely to expect it. Amortias (T)(C) 01:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Раціональне анархіст

I have checked that he had misrepresented one of your comment before as WP:NPA. Now I am currently having a problem with him, he continues to WP:REFACTOR my comments from his talk page after misrepresenting them as WP:NPA. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The band is getting back together!

Nothing reunites Wiki editors quite like the raging COI of a single-purpose editor's article being AfD'd. :D  Mbinebri  15:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Catflap08

Hi! I have recently (read: over the past 9 months) been having a problem with this user, and recently I requested he get TBANned from the Kenji Miyazawa article. This was opposed by User:John Carter who seemed convinced that I was involved in some stalled DRN discussion with Catflap and was forum-shopping by bringing the dispute to ANI. Ironic since one of my complaints about Catflap was that he was forum-shopping. I have just now been doing a bit of digging (didn't have to go far: edits to the ANI archives are almost always problematic) and found out that actually forum-shopping of that exact kind had been done, and you were the target of it.

I'm curious if you have any hints on how to put up with this guy? He's stopped editing Misplaced Pages over the last two days, but I'm certain he'll be back (my current dispute with him started when he came back after six months to violate a by-then old consensus, after having already done the same previously). It's pretty bloody frustrating. The guy clearly knows nothing whatsoever about the subject except that he is (peripherally?) aware of his religious views, and it's becoming a pain dealing with him.

Any advice?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Catflap08, yes, I remember the name. He does seem to get very worked up, and yes, this edit to an AN/I archive brought a chuckle. I don't attempt to deal with him. Sometimes I attempt to deal with his edits. If I were to bring these up at WP:AN/I, I'd write a draft, print it out, edit it with a red pen for concision and clarity, and only then post it. (And of course I'd avoid any boldface whatever. Use of boldface seems to say "My rational arguments, if any, aren't strong enough. So I have to shout.") -- Hoary (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, toward the end that was a serious problem. Initially I was just trying to make the important parts stand out. Explaining how a content dispute isn't a content dispute because the content dispute was actually resolved months ago and the actual problem is that a user is being thick-headed is ... well, I'm not good at it. If anything else happens I'll do a better job next time, anyway. Thanks! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yea right lol --Catflap08 (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Catflap08: Funny how you posted a link to closed ANI discussion (note: it only got closed because I asked for it, and you only came back to editing because it was closed, so ... you're welcome for that) that almost immediately suffered link rot. Also: "lol"? You don't know the difference between "misrepresentation" and "misinterpretation" and you "lol" at me? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like to continue this (or any other) discussion between the two of you, please do so elsewhere, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Bernard Cheong pictures/photo

Hi Horay,

uploading pictures, seem too much selection, am worry my friend Bernard Cheong pictures/photo is been downloaded and misuse can you at least guide me how to do it or what to write when uploading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zane Loke (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see this on your talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sir Claude

Thanks for the moustache. I guess it could've been worse. -- BenRG (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sir! They are utterly unlike. Sir Claude's moustache shows a man of both action and culture. Oh, and wax. Panayot Hitov's facial growth is an assault on the senses. -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You are strange

Removing cited work to support your own POV is vandalism. And why are you trolling me? Or are you a sockpuppet of Yopie?