I am working on a list and wanted to know if you would proofread the intro text for me? If available, I would appreciate your feedback. Regardless, thank you for your help on wikipedia. kilbad ( talk) 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, please be more careful when talking about living persons as you did here. This is obviously a controversial topic, and some of your comments could offend people reading. Spring12 ( talk) 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Hoary, after waiting for 2 months in vain for DGG to put the Errol Sawyer article back on, I would like to ask your advise. Do you have an e-mail address I can send information to? Thank you very much,
-- 82.95.185.119 ( talk) 09:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed your edits and you seem to know about photography.
I have spent time fixing up this complete fluff piece on Rodney Lough Jr.. Do you know anything about this guy? The article seemed just a huge promotional exercise that Lough had put together. Is this guy worthy of a wikipedia entry? Thanks Jenafalt ( talk) 10:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Your assistance would be appreciated concerning ja:草泥馬, as to where exactly the interwiki links go. For me, they should logically be linked to Grass Mud Horse and zh:草泥馬, but another editor pointed out that there is some content which suggests that the JP article could have been misnamed because there are some references to the Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures. Neither of our Japanese skills are of a sufficient level to solve this one. The discussion is here. Cheers, Ohconfucius ( talk) 16:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
You're being discussed here, in regards to that Sheree Silver articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 04:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
No no, you didn't upset me at all. (My skin is thick, and you didn't even scratch it.) I suppose I was saying that if I were to comment on the substance of what you wrote there, I'd disagree with some of it as strongly as SH had done -- but that this wasn't the place to get into an argument about it. I didn't mean to say that I agreed with SH's objections. (For one thing, I disagree with them.) AfD is usually a pretty horrible experience and it's unfortunate that one of " your" articles was subjected to one so early. (A "PROD" notice is bad enough: example; defense.) Best wishes for editing other articles. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate your opinions and contributions at an essay I am working on: User:Chillum/Discrediting your opponent. It is only a stub, but I think a significant essay can be written on the subject.
The more brains I have helping me the better I can get this concept across to people. More brains can also be a potent sanity check. I have found past discussions with you to be very helpful. Chillum 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Re. Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses
What kind of idiot is that? I just fail to understand the point of it. It's hardly going to succeed in subverting the poll (I am in support, BTW, and it seems rougly 2 to 3 in the oppose camp) but I just can't think, I can imagine if it was destructive even, but it's just pointless. Sorry it just boggles my mind. Thanks for reverting, merrily. SimonTrew ( talk) 02:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
How'd you manage to keep yourself away from this little morsel you deletionist you? -- KP Botany ( talk) 05:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it. I'm OK now, I'm embarrassed a little though. A typical J reaction in the 恥の文化 society? Oda Mari ( talk) 05:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
:) Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, 20 days have passed and no evidence has been presented so can you return the article's version to the featured status? Also, can you say something to Hobartimus so that he stops falsely accusing others and discriminating against IP users?-- 86.44.135.94 ( talk) 21:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Your message was received and very appreciated. Sorry for my outburst as well. Good luck and hopefully I have made a wiki friend! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kramer84 ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Hoary/Archive20 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong when you say the US is at war. Bush's stupid "War on Terror" slogan was just designed to scare the people and Congress into supporting his empire-building action in Iraq. No declaration of war was ever made. You could argue that it is a de facto war, but not that it is actually a war. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
You asked for an apology on my behalf due to a personal attack in Talk:Errol Sawyer, and I appreciate it! Mbinebri talk ← 15:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC) |
Now I understand where you are both coming from. Did you read the book Invisible Man of Ralph Ellison because I was referring to that and not to Mbineri? 1027E ( talk) 08:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Yup, you're a snoot alright (after having read the Garner link). Then grab hold of Fowler and go to work! I'll watch from the peanut gallery, attempting to boldy tame the crowd (hee hee, just kidding with the split inf). I hang out with a full-blown snoot. I love to throw out a variety of barbarisms in public when I'm with him, just to watch him squirm. Some favorites are "supposably", "irregardless", "agreeance", and the like. The truth is that I'm jealous. I'm too lazy, have too many hobbies, and dammit, I'm just not smart enough to be a snoot. Tparameter ( talk) 15:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar | ||
While the changes you made on John Frusciante today were minor, they demonstrated your passion for verbage (my dad's chiding word, referring to verbal and garbage). Because your deep concern about quality of text featured on the mainpage every day is a major asset to the pedia, I award you this minor, but not unimportant, barnstar. BusterD ( talk) 15:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC) |
The Merriam-Webster Word of the Day for May 3, 2009 is "hoary." Few among us will share this honor. Fg2 ( talk) 06:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I will move my message to his talk page now. Thanks. Ikip ( talk) 08:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Truth (painting), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truth (painting). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Newross ( talk) 18:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tollemache-for-our-times.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui ( talk) 01:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
[1] thanks for the laugh! KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Likewise :) Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
May also be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gordon Bleu/Archive. -- Scjessey ( talk) 23:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, I see that you reverted my edits that you referred to on my talk page. Thats fine, as always, Im bold but willing to discuss. My feeling was that because public image of SP is not an article about parodies, it doesnt make sense to to leave a link in various parody articles pointing back to Public Image. Additionally, as you can see from the redirect for deletion discussion, I was driven by a misguided effort to remove the redirect as clutter, an effort which I stopped once it became clear to me that redirects are actually desirable. If you find that answer implausible, so be it.
As for your representation of the AfD or what it means, I disagree with your implication that that discussion was anything other than a referendum on POV fork, not content. I said I felt the article was a POV fork at the onset, and that was the gist of the discussion, as you know. It is entirely incorrect to represent the lack of discussion of the contents of the article as implicit approval, it was not. Bonewah ( talk) 13:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Hoary. I'm involved in a minor controversy over at Battles Without Honor and Humanity, and one in which I'm not entirely sure I'm on the right side... The lead mentions in passing that the author of the novel, Koichi Iiboshi (飯干晃一) had once been a yakuza. This is "reliably sourced" to the book Outlaw Masters of Japanese Film by Chris D. and to a direct quote from Fukasaku Kinji in that book. An editor says this is not true and has removed it twice. I suspect the editor is Japanese, and that he is correct, but the problem is we have a "reliable source" that says otherwise... (My opinion of Chris D.'s authority is shaky, but he's all over the place in commentary on Japanese films, and published.) I've reverted and attributed the yakuza claim directly to the book, but I'm not comfortable doing so. I've looked at the Japanese Wiki article on Iiboshi, and it says he went to Tokyo Daigaku, and graduated Kyoto University, not exactly impeccable yakuza credentials. The problem is-- as often at Ja-Wiki-- that article is unsourced... Can you point to any reliable sourcing so that we can counter this mistake in the English book? Or at least stop me from "edit warring" to version I suspect is wrong? :) Dekkappai ( talk) 17:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This seems like a complete misunderstanding (whatever other crimes Donadio may be guilty of). See my comments on Donadio's talk page. Peter Damian ( talk) 13:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comments in this thread. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you undo these moves? This article is about execution by elephant, not about execution by crushing, and, for some reason they can't be reverted. No discussion, no appropriate additions, nothing, just unilaterally moved an article about a very specific topic to a more general topic. Execution by elephant. I'm in the midst of finals. -- KP Botany ( talk) 05:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment at ANI. DGG ( talk) 19:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hoary. I've recently had a couple impressive viewing experiences-- (movies, I mean)-- and as I recall, you are also a bit of a connoisseur of the cinematically unusual. First-- the 1998 restoration of Welles' Touch of Evil. I hadn't seen the 1958 version for a long time, but this version-- based on Welles' famous, and famously ignored, memo-- left me awe-struck. Highly recommended. Also, to get a glimpse of what was going on on the other side of the water that dare not not speak its name, take a look at this:
http://www.theauteurs.com/films/2039
It's The Housemaid (1960), by Kim Ki-young. And it's free. Dekkappai ( talk) 17:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Hoary. This is Donadio. If it's not abusing your patience, can I ask you please to take a look at the ongoing discussion at White Brazilian and make some comments about procedure? Thanks in advance. Donadio ( talk) 23:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Hoary. You have been absolutely fantastic in that discussion. I hope you can find the time (and energy) to continue helping on those articles. Donadio ( talk) 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of abusing your patience, can I ask you to please comment in the Talk Page? Thanks in advance. Donadio ( talk) 14:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this one, too. That was quite irritating, even if somewhat funny in another level. Donadio ( talk) 21:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Hoary. I respect your opinion, so I would appreciate you taking a look at this very short article that I stumbled upon. Based on the evidence so far provided and Wikipedia's notability criteria, do you consider the subject notable? I'm not sure what to think, so I would like to solicit some more opinions from established and respected members of the community. J Readings ( talk) 03:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Please continue the discussion at Lindsay Perigo or some other place that seems appropriate, rather than here. Thank you. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, I think it is time to protect German Brazilian. Donadio ( talk) 21:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I have protected the article. I'll comment on that on its talk page. I shall not make personal comments there. However, since personal matters have been raised on this, my personal talk page, I'll make one brief personal observation here. Yes, Donadio has indeed been blocked several times for disruption and edit-warring. Opinoso has also been blocked several times, for these and also for personal attacks. My patience is being stretched here. Stretch it a little more, and I might block again for persistent claims/innuendo about an alleged political or other desire to hide this or that. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, what should I do about this:
What should be "sources" for the lyrics of a song? Something like [5] and [6]?
Sincerely, if your patience is being stretched, so is mine. I'm trying to do things like I am told, but, really, when it seems something is on its way to resolution, a new problem appears. About things like the spelling of two words in a popular song's lyrics.
Thank your for your help. Donadio ( talk) 23:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, I am not personally interested in either placing or removing pictures from the articles. However, I do see some edit warring on them. Is there some guideline for that? Ninguém ( talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I fear not. I am actually talking about things like [7] and [8]. Can one remove a picture just out of political or aesthetical considerations? Ninguém ( talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, thank you. I know I have been abusing your patience. It's that you are the only reasonable admin I have found who was willing to actually try to understand the problems I have been facing, and so I tend to recur to you.
I think I am not a very "graphic" person; I tend to focus in text, not in pictures. In fact, I think I never added or removed any picture in Wikipedia. But sometimes I do see things that strike me as unjust being done to other editors, out of apparently no valid reason. That's why I have brought these edits into question.
I am having some real life troubles that have been delaying my editing here. That's the reason I haven't advanced the discussion in "German Brazilian" as much as I would have liked. It is also sometimes difficult to source the obvious, or to substantiate a negative claim (for instance, how do I source the information that there was no "torture penalty" under Vargas' dictatorship? Can I merely place a link to the 1937 "Constitution" (or the Penal Code) and leave the reader with the trouble of reading everything?)
Again thank you, Ninguém ( talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually trying to find Gertz's text online, which I think would be considerably better. If I can't, I'm going to use your proposal. Thank you! Ninguém ( talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, can you please help me in discussing and solving problems of relevance? As of now, the article on Hunsrückisch makes assertions on the existence of a "German-Brazilian identity" and about English being taught as a second language in Rio Grande do Sul, that seem quite misplaced there. To my surprise, my attempt to remove these irrelevant informations was met with immediate reversal. Ninguém ( talk) 12:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You were entirely right to remove this (unsourced) peripheral material from this (entirely unsourced) section of the article. I've left a warning on the editor's page. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing bizarre about my reversion. Actually, the entire Hunsrückisch article is unsourced and to remove an information saying it is not "sourced" cannot be applied in an enterely unsourced article. Moreover, the information about the "German identity" is important, even if not sourced, because if a person born in Brazil keeps speaking German rather than adopt the Portuguese language spoken by the vast majority, this person is, somehow, keeping a "German identity". The language that a person speaks is one of the most important elements of his/her identity. The important information was removed, along with the information about English, which actually has nothing to do with the article. However, the other editor likes to remove important and not important informations all together, making it impossible for someone to know if the all the informations are important or not. Opinoso ( talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
About the German Brazilian discussion, it will never come to an end. Each day, the other editor opens a new discussion, usually saying a "source is not reliable" when he does not agree with the sourced information. My informations are all sourced and if another editor thinks my source is not reliable, I will say it is, and it'll never come to an end. The source about the Germans being tortured comes from the Gazeta do Povo, which is one of the most importants newspapers from the state of Paraná. And more: the informations there are based on the book Os Soldados Alemães de Vargas, which is a historic book, which had notability in Brazil, and it talks about the people of German descent being forced to fight in World War II (and the trauma they had because of this) and also about the persecution Germans faced in Brazil. Opinoso ( talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
However, the other editor, as usuall, likes to do original resources, and thinks his theories are more reliable than sources based on newspapers or books. Since nobody here speaks Portuguese, and most sources about this subject are in Portuguese, he takes this weakness to claim sources are not "reliable" and to sell his theories, usually erasing informations he deslikes. I already had months of discussion with the other user, and I got tired of it. My contributions for Wikipedia are being impaired, because each day I logg in there are a lot of discussions going on, making it impossible for me to keep writing in articles, because I am forced to participate in in usuless discussion with the other editor, which will never come to an end, because each day a new bizarre discussion is opened by him. Opinoso ( talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
And, "curiously", the other editor only starts a discussion in articles that I have recently edit, because he wants to force me to discuss with him and to start new edit-warrings or disruptions. And that's because he uses Wikipedia for discussion, as a Forum (which is not allowed), like this one, which is bizarre he started a discussion about nationality which has nothing to do with the article (typicall Forum discussion) "new discussion" [9] in an article that I have recently edit (what a surprise).
The other user follows my edits, and he only edits in articles that I have recently edited ( White Brazilian, German Brazilian, Italian Brazilian, Hunsrückisch, now even in Domingos Jorge Velho). Why should I discuss with an user who follows my edits only to start a new disruption? Why should I discuss with an user who was blocked several times last months for the same kind of disruption? Why should I discuss with an user who do this kind of thing: [10] [11] [12] (I still do not know why he was not infinitely blocked after this behaviour).
I ask you to tell the other user to stop opening everyday my "contributions page" and following my edits. Could you tell him to follow edits is not allowed, and that there are several other articles in Wikipedia? Opinoso ( talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I am since December being forced to "discuss" with the other editor, because he only edits in articles that I recently edited. It's not me who is "edit-warring" with him, like someone else may think. It's the user who follows my edits. I decided not to "feed" the other user anymore, because if I keeping "discussing", next Christmas I know I will still be "discussing" the same issues in the article German Brazilian or in another one. I have no time for that. I have better things to do here in Wikipedia, like learning when reading a new article, or contributing to others. I do not want to read that a source from a notable newspaper from Paraná or from a notable book is not "reliable", because another editor wants to hide or omitte some not beautiful informations.
The other user is since the beggining trying to make somebody block me, because he wants to be free to erase sourced informations, to sell his biased personal theories, to "Portuguese-wash" articles about Brazilians. Since I'm so tired of this, I decided to leave the discussions. I don't know why he choose me to be the one to discuss with him, but there are many other users in Wikipedia that can replace me there. Opinoso ( talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I know that you are trying to help, but this is not only a content problem. The other user is obssessed with me, spends hours a day following my edits and finding a way to open a new "discussion". I do not want to make part of those discussions, even though he tries to force me to be there. It's not a matter of me trying to have the ownership of those articles, but if an user only edits in the same articles I do, there's something going on. Again, I'm out of those discussions. But, if I notice the other user is manipulating sources because people do not speak Portuguese, or is selling his personal theories, usually pro-Portuguese theories, I won't let this kind of thing happen. Opinoso ( talk) 22:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, could you please check this IP: 201.15.138.116? Ninguém ( talk) 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, I am trying to improve Version N. It's not always easy, and I don't always find the better way to source things. I don't think I actually know how to format links to Google in order to avoid sideways scrolling. As for ISBNs, I am trying to find sources accessible online, preferably to pointing to offline sources. Am I wrong?
I am also having less time to edit in a more detailed and profound way; real life sometimes needs to have precedence.
As for the IP, he has made two edits. Both seem to continue other IP edits, namely 201.10.43.98 and 201.35.133.68, which have surfaced in this context: [13]. I hope you will understand that I find it necessary to put them biggest distance between myself and such things.
I hadn't seen the reversion of the other edit. Mischaracterizations of others' edits as vandalism is not something new in this context. I have actually complained about that in my talk page during the discussion of my unfair block.
Thank you for your time and patience. Ninguém ( talk) 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again, Hoary. Your summary of my problem with such edits is more precise and concise than I would have possibly made it.
personal comments |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I have been struggling against Opinoso for my right to edit Wikipedia for half an year now. His behaviour has ranged from endless rants full of personal attacks to misinterpreting sources as saying the exact opposite of what they actually say; and from using sockpuppets to win edit wars to actual criminal (I mean, actually punishable by the Penal Code of the Brazilian State) behaviour like publicly and falsely accusing me of racism. It is even funny at times, as when he regards Darcy Ribeiro - a Brazilian nationalist and a Varguista - as the end all be all of Brazilian anthropology, and then goes on to accuse me of being a supporter of Vargas' dictatorship. I have been trying to be as patient as possible, and to comply as much as possible with the directions given by you and Gwen Gale. It is not always easy; at times I actually wish I could find the kind of irresponsible and incompetent administrator that Opinoso seems able to motivate to defend his awful article ownership, and simply get him blocked for good as he has been in the Portuguese Wikipedia. |
I am sorry for this rant; I know that nothing of this is your fault, and, in the contrary, your intervention in this issue has been extremely useful and precise. In fact, if there were more admins like you (which unhappily seems to be untrue), Wikipedia might be a viable project. There are, frankly, times when I think the best I could do would be to quit Wikipedia for good, and start trying to undermine its credibility elsewhere. If I haven't, it is mainly your merit.
As for Version N, I'm still unhappy with it. First, there is this recurrent myth that Vargas forbade "all manifestations of German culture". While this assertion can be "sourced", ie, there actually are people stupid enough to put this into writing and publish it in the internet or in paper, this is clearly an absurd. I would like to find sources that explicitly deny this, but it obviously isn't easy.
There evidently was intervention against German-owned companies in Brazil during Vargas dictatorship. I am trying to establish what actually happened, which involves trying to understand why Renner apparently had no bigger problems than no longer being able to actively discriminate against non-Germans in their employment policies (which, yes, they used to do), while Hering had to suffer replacement of its manager and board (and why Curt Hering was someone that could not be allowed to manage his own company, but and individual named Roberto Grossenbacher was considered apt to manage it in his place; apparently it hasn't to do with Hering being of German descent, or Grossenbacher wouldn't qualify also). Also, I would like to present a better picture of the legal measures taken by Vargas against the minority of German descent. This isn't easy; the Brazilian Senate has a collection of Brazilian legislation, but searching it is not really easy and my feeling is it is incomplete. I would really like to present a decree that forbade the use of German and established penalties against it use, to definitely put to rest the lie that there was a "torture penalty". But so far I found two, that forbade it but said nothing about penalties. I have referred to them in the article ( [14]), but the edit was summarily erased as usual ( [15]), including the unaccurate and offencive edit summary.
I would also like to write something about the participation of "German Brazilians" in the Brazilian Army and especially its campaign against the Wehrmacht in Northern Italy. Up to now, there is something quite disagreeable about what the article has to say about it. If "German Brazilians" had to enlist and fight like everybody else, that's an horror, because, poor them, they would have to shoot at other Germans. If not, the horror, they were discriminated, they could not even have a military carreer.
The general tone of the article is awful, too. It projects XXI centurally mores into WWII times, when nobody actually cared about multiculturalism and ethnic minorities rights (not even in established democracies as the US and the UK); it treats the mistreatment of German nationals and "German Brazilians" by Vargas' dictatorship as a completely isolated phenomenon - when in fact, in this particular issue, Vargas' dictatorship does not compare unfavourably to Roosevelt's democracy. It goes to length in denying the existence of a "German danger" as it was perceived and denounced by Brazilian nationalists (and government) at the time; but then it wants us to consider perfectly natural and acceptable that part of the Brazilian populace considered itself German (and Germans ethnically superior to other "races"). I would like to change that. Unhappily, it is not easy, nor it can be done in a few minutes. It would probably take a few months, even if there wasn't the intent, by other editors, to keep it as it is.
So I am going to have to ask you for some patience, perhaps more than it is reasonable to demand. Ninguém ( talk) 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This has been a very long day and I shall therefore address just one point.
You say above: I have referred to them in the article ( link), but the edit was summarily erased as usual ( link), including the unaccurate and offencive edit summary (with my addition of the word "link", twice).
The first edit seems informative. However, its summary reads Correcting sensationalist claims with reliable sources (Brazilian legal texts). But this itself strikes me as controversial. Brazil was an authoritarian country, and in such countries the letter of the law is not always adhered to. Brazilian legal texts may be excellent sources for the letter of the Brazilian law but they are not obviously the best sources for what the police and others were actually doing. Further, what you were altering and added to may or may not have been sensationalist but you should know very well that this word is likely to anger your opponent. Whether or not the claims were sensationalist, all you needed to say is that they lacked reliable sources.
The second edit indeed has an inaccurate edit summary. But I don't see it as offensive. Perhaps you were indeed offended; if you were, I think you'd also be offended by an insinuation that you had inserted sensationalist claims. Let's not have double standards here.
Now let's look at your sources in that edit of yours. Here's one footnote:
That looks terrible. Try clicking on it. I don't know about you, but (thanks to a quotation mark) it doesn't work for me. Do you perhaps mean
?
Now please return to that sandbox. I'm not interested in claims for which there surely ought to be evidence even if that evidence can't be found. Just use the best information that you do have, and use it very scrupulously. Thank you. -- Hoary ( talk) 15:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to read this, because I thought that the sandbox was moving toward what looked to me (unable to read Portuguese) an informative state. Even if it was "two steps forward, one step back" and I clobbered the one step back, it was improving. And actually it wasn't two forward one back; more like three forward one back. So I hope that you return to the sandbox, perhaps after a week-long break. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
As I have explained, I don't want to be associated with Wikipedia. Opinoso's edit here is just plain useless and noxious. And can you please explain him, for the 298,320,983,280th time, what is vandalism, so that he stops misusing the word?
Thank you. Ninguém ( talk) 11:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, Gwen Gale did it. Thanks anyway. Ninguém ( talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Good afternoon! I hope I am not being intrusive, but I´d like to request for your help in a matter. I have recently done a few harmless edits in the article Brazilian people. I´ve added pictures of Brazilians from different ethnies from the 19th Century simply to illustrate. However, user Opinoso not only reverted my edits but also started a revert war for meaningless reasons. He disliked the fact that I had put the first the picture of a White girl (which was a random choice of mine) and later he complained that a ron girl was in fact Black. The problem is (along with the unnecessary edit war) the fact that he acts like he owned the article and consequently can do whatever he wants as he please. I am a long contributor for Wikipedia, artcles like: Politics of the Empire of Brazil, Economy of the Empire of Brazil, Military of the Empire of Brazil and many others were written, organized and edited almost exclusively by me. What I´m trying to tell is that I am very careful in what I do. Anyway, thank you for your time. - -- Lecen ( talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC_on_lead_image_alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 03:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Your external link: Oh ... my ... god. PS Online academic journals are coming to our neighbourhood very very soon—apparently the better ones will make the transition and you'll pay to be published (that is, your university will redirect its current library budget for buying dead-tree journals, plus more, into departmental funds for such publications). The mediocre journals will continue to kill innocent trees. Tony (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, a week ago you posted the following:
So I think that, a week later, I should explain why it is unlikely that I am going to the sandbox.
I am sorry, but I am not going to "improve" an article that states that there was a "torture penalty". I would be only giving credibility for that lie. That it is a falsety is indeed recognised by the editor who introduced it:
His understanding, of course, includes something very original:
The new, and unheard of, concept of "illegal penalty".
To me, the correct attitude was preciselly summarised by you:
This is exactly what is happening here. Wikipedia is misrepresenting the truth.
As to the substance of this debate, there are three different, though equally awful, things that may, or may not have happened:
I am open to debate the reality or unreality of any of those - if, and only if, I am not subjected to things like,
But evidently, my participation has two conditions: first, that the reference to "torture penalty" is previously removed; and second, that abuse like the reported above no longer goes on unpunished. Ninguém ( talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I am working on a list and wanted to know if you would proofread the intro text for me? If available, I would appreciate your feedback. Regardless, thank you for your help on wikipedia. kilbad ( talk) 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, please be more careful when talking about living persons as you did here. This is obviously a controversial topic, and some of your comments could offend people reading. Spring12 ( talk) 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Hoary, after waiting for 2 months in vain for DGG to put the Errol Sawyer article back on, I would like to ask your advise. Do you have an e-mail address I can send information to? Thank you very much,
-- 82.95.185.119 ( talk) 09:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed your edits and you seem to know about photography.
I have spent time fixing up this complete fluff piece on Rodney Lough Jr.. Do you know anything about this guy? The article seemed just a huge promotional exercise that Lough had put together. Is this guy worthy of a wikipedia entry? Thanks Jenafalt ( talk) 10:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Your assistance would be appreciated concerning ja:草泥馬, as to where exactly the interwiki links go. For me, they should logically be linked to Grass Mud Horse and zh:草泥馬, but another editor pointed out that there is some content which suggests that the JP article could have been misnamed because there are some references to the Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures. Neither of our Japanese skills are of a sufficient level to solve this one. The discussion is here. Cheers, Ohconfucius ( talk) 16:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
You're being discussed here, in regards to that Sheree Silver articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 04:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
No no, you didn't upset me at all. (My skin is thick, and you didn't even scratch it.) I suppose I was saying that if I were to comment on the substance of what you wrote there, I'd disagree with some of it as strongly as SH had done -- but that this wasn't the place to get into an argument about it. I didn't mean to say that I agreed with SH's objections. (For one thing, I disagree with them.) AfD is usually a pretty horrible experience and it's unfortunate that one of " your" articles was subjected to one so early. (A "PROD" notice is bad enough: example; defense.) Best wishes for editing other articles. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate your opinions and contributions at an essay I am working on: User:Chillum/Discrediting your opponent. It is only a stub, but I think a significant essay can be written on the subject.
The more brains I have helping me the better I can get this concept across to people. More brains can also be a potent sanity check. I have found past discussions with you to be very helpful. Chillum 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Re. Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses
What kind of idiot is that? I just fail to understand the point of it. It's hardly going to succeed in subverting the poll (I am in support, BTW, and it seems rougly 2 to 3 in the oppose camp) but I just can't think, I can imagine if it was destructive even, but it's just pointless. Sorry it just boggles my mind. Thanks for reverting, merrily. SimonTrew ( talk) 02:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
How'd you manage to keep yourself away from this little morsel you deletionist you? -- KP Botany ( talk) 05:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it. I'm OK now, I'm embarrassed a little though. A typical J reaction in the 恥の文化 society? Oda Mari ( talk) 05:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
:) Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, 20 days have passed and no evidence has been presented so can you return the article's version to the featured status? Also, can you say something to Hobartimus so that he stops falsely accusing others and discriminating against IP users?-- 86.44.135.94 ( talk) 21:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Your message was received and very appreciated. Sorry for my outburst as well. Good luck and hopefully I have made a wiki friend! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kramer84 ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Hoary/Archive20 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong when you say the US is at war. Bush's stupid "War on Terror" slogan was just designed to scare the people and Congress into supporting his empire-building action in Iraq. No declaration of war was ever made. You could argue that it is a de facto war, but not that it is actually a war. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
You asked for an apology on my behalf due to a personal attack in Talk:Errol Sawyer, and I appreciate it! Mbinebri talk ← 15:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC) |
Now I understand where you are both coming from. Did you read the book Invisible Man of Ralph Ellison because I was referring to that and not to Mbineri? 1027E ( talk) 08:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Yup, you're a snoot alright (after having read the Garner link). Then grab hold of Fowler and go to work! I'll watch from the peanut gallery, attempting to boldy tame the crowd (hee hee, just kidding with the split inf). I hang out with a full-blown snoot. I love to throw out a variety of barbarisms in public when I'm with him, just to watch him squirm. Some favorites are "supposably", "irregardless", "agreeance", and the like. The truth is that I'm jealous. I'm too lazy, have too many hobbies, and dammit, I'm just not smart enough to be a snoot. Tparameter ( talk) 15:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar | ||
While the changes you made on John Frusciante today were minor, they demonstrated your passion for verbage (my dad's chiding word, referring to verbal and garbage). Because your deep concern about quality of text featured on the mainpage every day is a major asset to the pedia, I award you this minor, but not unimportant, barnstar. BusterD ( talk) 15:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC) |
The Merriam-Webster Word of the Day for May 3, 2009 is "hoary." Few among us will share this honor. Fg2 ( talk) 06:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I will move my message to his talk page now. Thanks. Ikip ( talk) 08:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Truth (painting), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truth (painting). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Newross ( talk) 18:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tollemache-for-our-times.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui ( talk) 01:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
[1] thanks for the laugh! KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Likewise :) Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
May also be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gordon Bleu/Archive. -- Scjessey ( talk) 23:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, I see that you reverted my edits that you referred to on my talk page. Thats fine, as always, Im bold but willing to discuss. My feeling was that because public image of SP is not an article about parodies, it doesnt make sense to to leave a link in various parody articles pointing back to Public Image. Additionally, as you can see from the redirect for deletion discussion, I was driven by a misguided effort to remove the redirect as clutter, an effort which I stopped once it became clear to me that redirects are actually desirable. If you find that answer implausible, so be it.
As for your representation of the AfD or what it means, I disagree with your implication that that discussion was anything other than a referendum on POV fork, not content. I said I felt the article was a POV fork at the onset, and that was the gist of the discussion, as you know. It is entirely incorrect to represent the lack of discussion of the contents of the article as implicit approval, it was not. Bonewah ( talk) 13:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Hoary. I'm involved in a minor controversy over at Battles Without Honor and Humanity, and one in which I'm not entirely sure I'm on the right side... The lead mentions in passing that the author of the novel, Koichi Iiboshi (飯干晃一) had once been a yakuza. This is "reliably sourced" to the book Outlaw Masters of Japanese Film by Chris D. and to a direct quote from Fukasaku Kinji in that book. An editor says this is not true and has removed it twice. I suspect the editor is Japanese, and that he is correct, but the problem is we have a "reliable source" that says otherwise... (My opinion of Chris D.'s authority is shaky, but he's all over the place in commentary on Japanese films, and published.) I've reverted and attributed the yakuza claim directly to the book, but I'm not comfortable doing so. I've looked at the Japanese Wiki article on Iiboshi, and it says he went to Tokyo Daigaku, and graduated Kyoto University, not exactly impeccable yakuza credentials. The problem is-- as often at Ja-Wiki-- that article is unsourced... Can you point to any reliable sourcing so that we can counter this mistake in the English book? Or at least stop me from "edit warring" to version I suspect is wrong? :) Dekkappai ( talk) 17:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This seems like a complete misunderstanding (whatever other crimes Donadio may be guilty of). See my comments on Donadio's talk page. Peter Damian ( talk) 13:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comments in this thread. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you undo these moves? This article is about execution by elephant, not about execution by crushing, and, for some reason they can't be reverted. No discussion, no appropriate additions, nothing, just unilaterally moved an article about a very specific topic to a more general topic. Execution by elephant. I'm in the midst of finals. -- KP Botany ( talk) 05:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment at ANI. DGG ( talk) 19:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hoary. I've recently had a couple impressive viewing experiences-- (movies, I mean)-- and as I recall, you are also a bit of a connoisseur of the cinematically unusual. First-- the 1998 restoration of Welles' Touch of Evil. I hadn't seen the 1958 version for a long time, but this version-- based on Welles' famous, and famously ignored, memo-- left me awe-struck. Highly recommended. Also, to get a glimpse of what was going on on the other side of the water that dare not not speak its name, take a look at this:
http://www.theauteurs.com/films/2039
It's The Housemaid (1960), by Kim Ki-young. And it's free. Dekkappai ( talk) 17:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Hoary. This is Donadio. If it's not abusing your patience, can I ask you please to take a look at the ongoing discussion at White Brazilian and make some comments about procedure? Thanks in advance. Donadio ( talk) 23:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Hoary. You have been absolutely fantastic in that discussion. I hope you can find the time (and energy) to continue helping on those articles. Donadio ( talk) 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of abusing your patience, can I ask you to please comment in the Talk Page? Thanks in advance. Donadio ( talk) 14:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this one, too. That was quite irritating, even if somewhat funny in another level. Donadio ( talk) 21:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Hoary. I respect your opinion, so I would appreciate you taking a look at this very short article that I stumbled upon. Based on the evidence so far provided and Wikipedia's notability criteria, do you consider the subject notable? I'm not sure what to think, so I would like to solicit some more opinions from established and respected members of the community. J Readings ( talk) 03:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Please continue the discussion at Lindsay Perigo or some other place that seems appropriate, rather than here. Thank you. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, I think it is time to protect German Brazilian. Donadio ( talk) 21:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I have protected the article. I'll comment on that on its talk page. I shall not make personal comments there. However, since personal matters have been raised on this, my personal talk page, I'll make one brief personal observation here. Yes, Donadio has indeed been blocked several times for disruption and edit-warring. Opinoso has also been blocked several times, for these and also for personal attacks. My patience is being stretched here. Stretch it a little more, and I might block again for persistent claims/innuendo about an alleged political or other desire to hide this or that. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, what should I do about this:
What should be "sources" for the lyrics of a song? Something like [5] and [6]?
Sincerely, if your patience is being stretched, so is mine. I'm trying to do things like I am told, but, really, when it seems something is on its way to resolution, a new problem appears. About things like the spelling of two words in a popular song's lyrics.
Thank your for your help. Donadio ( talk) 23:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, I am not personally interested in either placing or removing pictures from the articles. However, I do see some edit warring on them. Is there some guideline for that? Ninguém ( talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I fear not. I am actually talking about things like [7] and [8]. Can one remove a picture just out of political or aesthetical considerations? Ninguém ( talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, thank you. I know I have been abusing your patience. It's that you are the only reasonable admin I have found who was willing to actually try to understand the problems I have been facing, and so I tend to recur to you.
I think I am not a very "graphic" person; I tend to focus in text, not in pictures. In fact, I think I never added or removed any picture in Wikipedia. But sometimes I do see things that strike me as unjust being done to other editors, out of apparently no valid reason. That's why I have brought these edits into question.
I am having some real life troubles that have been delaying my editing here. That's the reason I haven't advanced the discussion in "German Brazilian" as much as I would have liked. It is also sometimes difficult to source the obvious, or to substantiate a negative claim (for instance, how do I source the information that there was no "torture penalty" under Vargas' dictatorship? Can I merely place a link to the 1937 "Constitution" (or the Penal Code) and leave the reader with the trouble of reading everything?)
Again thank you, Ninguém ( talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually trying to find Gertz's text online, which I think would be considerably better. If I can't, I'm going to use your proposal. Thank you! Ninguém ( talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, can you please help me in discussing and solving problems of relevance? As of now, the article on Hunsrückisch makes assertions on the existence of a "German-Brazilian identity" and about English being taught as a second language in Rio Grande do Sul, that seem quite misplaced there. To my surprise, my attempt to remove these irrelevant informations was met with immediate reversal. Ninguém ( talk) 12:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You were entirely right to remove this (unsourced) peripheral material from this (entirely unsourced) section of the article. I've left a warning on the editor's page. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing bizarre about my reversion. Actually, the entire Hunsrückisch article is unsourced and to remove an information saying it is not "sourced" cannot be applied in an enterely unsourced article. Moreover, the information about the "German identity" is important, even if not sourced, because if a person born in Brazil keeps speaking German rather than adopt the Portuguese language spoken by the vast majority, this person is, somehow, keeping a "German identity". The language that a person speaks is one of the most important elements of his/her identity. The important information was removed, along with the information about English, which actually has nothing to do with the article. However, the other editor likes to remove important and not important informations all together, making it impossible for someone to know if the all the informations are important or not. Opinoso ( talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
About the German Brazilian discussion, it will never come to an end. Each day, the other editor opens a new discussion, usually saying a "source is not reliable" when he does not agree with the sourced information. My informations are all sourced and if another editor thinks my source is not reliable, I will say it is, and it'll never come to an end. The source about the Germans being tortured comes from the Gazeta do Povo, which is one of the most importants newspapers from the state of Paraná. And more: the informations there are based on the book Os Soldados Alemães de Vargas, which is a historic book, which had notability in Brazil, and it talks about the people of German descent being forced to fight in World War II (and the trauma they had because of this) and also about the persecution Germans faced in Brazil. Opinoso ( talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
However, the other editor, as usuall, likes to do original resources, and thinks his theories are more reliable than sources based on newspapers or books. Since nobody here speaks Portuguese, and most sources about this subject are in Portuguese, he takes this weakness to claim sources are not "reliable" and to sell his theories, usually erasing informations he deslikes. I already had months of discussion with the other user, and I got tired of it. My contributions for Wikipedia are being impaired, because each day I logg in there are a lot of discussions going on, making it impossible for me to keep writing in articles, because I am forced to participate in in usuless discussion with the other editor, which will never come to an end, because each day a new bizarre discussion is opened by him. Opinoso ( talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
And, "curiously", the other editor only starts a discussion in articles that I have recently edit, because he wants to force me to discuss with him and to start new edit-warrings or disruptions. And that's because he uses Wikipedia for discussion, as a Forum (which is not allowed), like this one, which is bizarre he started a discussion about nationality which has nothing to do with the article (typicall Forum discussion) "new discussion" [9] in an article that I have recently edit (what a surprise).
The other user follows my edits, and he only edits in articles that I have recently edited ( White Brazilian, German Brazilian, Italian Brazilian, Hunsrückisch, now even in Domingos Jorge Velho). Why should I discuss with an user who follows my edits only to start a new disruption? Why should I discuss with an user who was blocked several times last months for the same kind of disruption? Why should I discuss with an user who do this kind of thing: [10] [11] [12] (I still do not know why he was not infinitely blocked after this behaviour).
I ask you to tell the other user to stop opening everyday my "contributions page" and following my edits. Could you tell him to follow edits is not allowed, and that there are several other articles in Wikipedia? Opinoso ( talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I am since December being forced to "discuss" with the other editor, because he only edits in articles that I recently edited. It's not me who is "edit-warring" with him, like someone else may think. It's the user who follows my edits. I decided not to "feed" the other user anymore, because if I keeping "discussing", next Christmas I know I will still be "discussing" the same issues in the article German Brazilian or in another one. I have no time for that. I have better things to do here in Wikipedia, like learning when reading a new article, or contributing to others. I do not want to read that a source from a notable newspaper from Paraná or from a notable book is not "reliable", because another editor wants to hide or omitte some not beautiful informations.
The other user is since the beggining trying to make somebody block me, because he wants to be free to erase sourced informations, to sell his biased personal theories, to "Portuguese-wash" articles about Brazilians. Since I'm so tired of this, I decided to leave the discussions. I don't know why he choose me to be the one to discuss with him, but there are many other users in Wikipedia that can replace me there. Opinoso ( talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I know that you are trying to help, but this is not only a content problem. The other user is obssessed with me, spends hours a day following my edits and finding a way to open a new "discussion". I do not want to make part of those discussions, even though he tries to force me to be there. It's not a matter of me trying to have the ownership of those articles, but if an user only edits in the same articles I do, there's something going on. Again, I'm out of those discussions. But, if I notice the other user is manipulating sources because people do not speak Portuguese, or is selling his personal theories, usually pro-Portuguese theories, I won't let this kind of thing happen. Opinoso ( talk) 22:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, could you please check this IP: 201.15.138.116? Ninguém ( talk) 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, I am trying to improve Version N. It's not always easy, and I don't always find the better way to source things. I don't think I actually know how to format links to Google in order to avoid sideways scrolling. As for ISBNs, I am trying to find sources accessible online, preferably to pointing to offline sources. Am I wrong?
I am also having less time to edit in a more detailed and profound way; real life sometimes needs to have precedence.
As for the IP, he has made two edits. Both seem to continue other IP edits, namely 201.10.43.98 and 201.35.133.68, which have surfaced in this context: [13]. I hope you will understand that I find it necessary to put them biggest distance between myself and such things.
I hadn't seen the reversion of the other edit. Mischaracterizations of others' edits as vandalism is not something new in this context. I have actually complained about that in my talk page during the discussion of my unfair block.
Thank you for your time and patience. Ninguém ( talk) 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again, Hoary. Your summary of my problem with such edits is more precise and concise than I would have possibly made it.
personal comments |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I have been struggling against Opinoso for my right to edit Wikipedia for half an year now. His behaviour has ranged from endless rants full of personal attacks to misinterpreting sources as saying the exact opposite of what they actually say; and from using sockpuppets to win edit wars to actual criminal (I mean, actually punishable by the Penal Code of the Brazilian State) behaviour like publicly and falsely accusing me of racism. It is even funny at times, as when he regards Darcy Ribeiro - a Brazilian nationalist and a Varguista - as the end all be all of Brazilian anthropology, and then goes on to accuse me of being a supporter of Vargas' dictatorship. I have been trying to be as patient as possible, and to comply as much as possible with the directions given by you and Gwen Gale. It is not always easy; at times I actually wish I could find the kind of irresponsible and incompetent administrator that Opinoso seems able to motivate to defend his awful article ownership, and simply get him blocked for good as he has been in the Portuguese Wikipedia. |
I am sorry for this rant; I know that nothing of this is your fault, and, in the contrary, your intervention in this issue has been extremely useful and precise. In fact, if there were more admins like you (which unhappily seems to be untrue), Wikipedia might be a viable project. There are, frankly, times when I think the best I could do would be to quit Wikipedia for good, and start trying to undermine its credibility elsewhere. If I haven't, it is mainly your merit.
As for Version N, I'm still unhappy with it. First, there is this recurrent myth that Vargas forbade "all manifestations of German culture". While this assertion can be "sourced", ie, there actually are people stupid enough to put this into writing and publish it in the internet or in paper, this is clearly an absurd. I would like to find sources that explicitly deny this, but it obviously isn't easy.
There evidently was intervention against German-owned companies in Brazil during Vargas dictatorship. I am trying to establish what actually happened, which involves trying to understand why Renner apparently had no bigger problems than no longer being able to actively discriminate against non-Germans in their employment policies (which, yes, they used to do), while Hering had to suffer replacement of its manager and board (and why Curt Hering was someone that could not be allowed to manage his own company, but and individual named Roberto Grossenbacher was considered apt to manage it in his place; apparently it hasn't to do with Hering being of German descent, or Grossenbacher wouldn't qualify also). Also, I would like to present a better picture of the legal measures taken by Vargas against the minority of German descent. This isn't easy; the Brazilian Senate has a collection of Brazilian legislation, but searching it is not really easy and my feeling is it is incomplete. I would really like to present a decree that forbade the use of German and established penalties against it use, to definitely put to rest the lie that there was a "torture penalty". But so far I found two, that forbade it but said nothing about penalties. I have referred to them in the article ( [14]), but the edit was summarily erased as usual ( [15]), including the unaccurate and offencive edit summary.
I would also like to write something about the participation of "German Brazilians" in the Brazilian Army and especially its campaign against the Wehrmacht in Northern Italy. Up to now, there is something quite disagreeable about what the article has to say about it. If "German Brazilians" had to enlist and fight like everybody else, that's an horror, because, poor them, they would have to shoot at other Germans. If not, the horror, they were discriminated, they could not even have a military carreer.
The general tone of the article is awful, too. It projects XXI centurally mores into WWII times, when nobody actually cared about multiculturalism and ethnic minorities rights (not even in established democracies as the US and the UK); it treats the mistreatment of German nationals and "German Brazilians" by Vargas' dictatorship as a completely isolated phenomenon - when in fact, in this particular issue, Vargas' dictatorship does not compare unfavourably to Roosevelt's democracy. It goes to length in denying the existence of a "German danger" as it was perceived and denounced by Brazilian nationalists (and government) at the time; but then it wants us to consider perfectly natural and acceptable that part of the Brazilian populace considered itself German (and Germans ethnically superior to other "races"). I would like to change that. Unhappily, it is not easy, nor it can be done in a few minutes. It would probably take a few months, even if there wasn't the intent, by other editors, to keep it as it is.
So I am going to have to ask you for some patience, perhaps more than it is reasonable to demand. Ninguém ( talk) 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This has been a very long day and I shall therefore address just one point.
You say above: I have referred to them in the article ( link), but the edit was summarily erased as usual ( link), including the unaccurate and offencive edit summary (with my addition of the word "link", twice).
The first edit seems informative. However, its summary reads Correcting sensationalist claims with reliable sources (Brazilian legal texts). But this itself strikes me as controversial. Brazil was an authoritarian country, and in such countries the letter of the law is not always adhered to. Brazilian legal texts may be excellent sources for the letter of the Brazilian law but they are not obviously the best sources for what the police and others were actually doing. Further, what you were altering and added to may or may not have been sensationalist but you should know very well that this word is likely to anger your opponent. Whether or not the claims were sensationalist, all you needed to say is that they lacked reliable sources.
The second edit indeed has an inaccurate edit summary. But I don't see it as offensive. Perhaps you were indeed offended; if you were, I think you'd also be offended by an insinuation that you had inserted sensationalist claims. Let's not have double standards here.
Now let's look at your sources in that edit of yours. Here's one footnote:
That looks terrible. Try clicking on it. I don't know about you, but (thanks to a quotation mark) it doesn't work for me. Do you perhaps mean
?
Now please return to that sandbox. I'm not interested in claims for which there surely ought to be evidence even if that evidence can't be found. Just use the best information that you do have, and use it very scrupulously. Thank you. -- Hoary ( talk) 15:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to read this, because I thought that the sandbox was moving toward what looked to me (unable to read Portuguese) an informative state. Even if it was "two steps forward, one step back" and I clobbered the one step back, it was improving. And actually it wasn't two forward one back; more like three forward one back. So I hope that you return to the sandbox, perhaps after a week-long break. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
As I have explained, I don't want to be associated with Wikipedia. Opinoso's edit here is just plain useless and noxious. And can you please explain him, for the 298,320,983,280th time, what is vandalism, so that he stops misusing the word?
Thank you. Ninguém ( talk) 11:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, Gwen Gale did it. Thanks anyway. Ninguém ( talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Good afternoon! I hope I am not being intrusive, but I´d like to request for your help in a matter. I have recently done a few harmless edits in the article Brazilian people. I´ve added pictures of Brazilians from different ethnies from the 19th Century simply to illustrate. However, user Opinoso not only reverted my edits but also started a revert war for meaningless reasons. He disliked the fact that I had put the first the picture of a White girl (which was a random choice of mine) and later he complained that a ron girl was in fact Black. The problem is (along with the unnecessary edit war) the fact that he acts like he owned the article and consequently can do whatever he wants as he please. I am a long contributor for Wikipedia, artcles like: Politics of the Empire of Brazil, Economy of the Empire of Brazil, Military of the Empire of Brazil and many others were written, organized and edited almost exclusively by me. What I´m trying to tell is that I am very careful in what I do. Anyway, thank you for your time. - -- Lecen ( talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC_on_lead_image_alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 03:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Your external link: Oh ... my ... god. PS Online academic journals are coming to our neighbourhood very very soon—apparently the better ones will make the transition and you'll pay to be published (that is, your university will redirect its current library budget for buying dead-tree journals, plus more, into departmental funds for such publications). The mediocre journals will continue to kill innocent trees. Tony (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, a week ago you posted the following:
So I think that, a week later, I should explain why it is unlikely that I am going to the sandbox.
I am sorry, but I am not going to "improve" an article that states that there was a "torture penalty". I would be only giving credibility for that lie. That it is a falsety is indeed recognised by the editor who introduced it:
His understanding, of course, includes something very original:
The new, and unheard of, concept of "illegal penalty".
To me, the correct attitude was preciselly summarised by you:
This is exactly what is happening here. Wikipedia is misrepresenting the truth.
As to the substance of this debate, there are three different, though equally awful, things that may, or may not have happened:
I am open to debate the reality or unreality of any of those - if, and only if, I am not subjected to things like,
But evidently, my participation has two conditions: first, that the reference to "torture penalty" is previously removed; and second, that abuse like the reported above no longer goes on unpunished. Ninguém ( talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)