| Revision as of 05:21, 19 May 2009 editKP Botany (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,588 edits →Undo: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:25, 19 May 2009 edit undoKP Botany (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,588 edits →Undo: saved by the try a few things and one might work, who cares if it's the right way....Next edit → | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
| 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. ]. I'm in the midst of finals. --] (]) 05:21, 19 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. ]. I'm in the midst of finals. --] (]) 05:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Oh, apparently it can just be moved back. I did that. --] (]) 05:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:25, 19 May 2009
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 |
|
Snootery
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)
- Maybe a trip to the liberry would help? Dekkappai (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I hear you. Me, I tend to say such things as "Hopefully the new pamphlet will be better than last year's" when in the earshot of some old fart (of any age) who takes seriously the strictures of dopey "language mavens": I just like to watch the self-righteous quiver with rage. If you liked the Garner link, try the same author's richly deserved demolition of "Strunk and White". -- Hoary (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wow. I like that Strunk and White critique. It was brutal, but honest. Good one. Tparameter (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Another barnstar
|
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) |
- Oh that's terribly decent of you, Buster old chap. I'd been hankering after a nose stud and this is just what the otorhinolaryngologist ordered. I learned the other day that there's no internal locking mechanism and I infer that they can pop out when you sneeze; I promise to be careful with this new bauble. -- Hoary (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- They're sharp, too. BusterD (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Word of the Day
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)
- Crumbs. And posterity can view it here, we're told. But thank you for the heads-up during the big day! -- Hoary (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the message
Thanks for the message. I will move my message to his talk page now. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of The Truth (painting)
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 Misplaced Pages: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)
- I don't believe that I've ever contributed to the article on this ultimate non-event, but thank you for the heads-up all the same. -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Image permission problem with Image:Tollemache-for-our-times.png
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
- make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
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 Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages: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)
- I'm glad to see that this has been fixed (OTRS link). -- Hoary (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Damn elitists!
thanks for the laugh! KillerChihuahua 16:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Likewise :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Prodtree
May also be related to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Gordon Bleu/Archive. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Very likely so, yes. (Jeez, do we have to go through all that rigmarole in order to deal with this latest name for an, er, "problematic user"? He's got "Multiplyperfect" written all over him; I'd have thought that would be enough.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Parodies of Sarah Palin
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)
Minor controversy...
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)
Block of Donadio
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)
- PS I like your "Please don't post a generic smile, "wikilove" or similar template here." Peter Damian (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you. (See my comments on Rlevse's talk page.) Thank you for alerting me to this; I wouldn't have noticed it otherwise. -- Hoary (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- But then you refused to unblock him because you are "alarmed by the very clear indication that you want to continue your feud with him." So is he now blocked because he intends to continue a feud, or because of alleged racist comments? If not the latter, why does the original block notice talk about racist comments? Peter Damian (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comments in this thread. -- Hoary (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Undo
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)
- Oh, apparently it can just be moved back. I did that. --KP Botany (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)