Please do not edit this page.
I've secured semi-protection of this page for ten days because of copyvio posting. Their latest effort is a huge chunk from the WP article on Vivien Leigh, which needs to be cut back severely. If you haven't the time for another look, I'll give it a try. Given your earlier edits, you would probably do the better job! -- Old Moonraker 15:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Hoary: I'm glad that liked my chronology; I've literally spent decades accumulating all of that info and I used some of it to write several individual SLR articles for Wikipedia. I'm happy that at least one other person finds it all interesting too. If you want to "swipe" it, please feel free. I've noticed Camerapedia.org before, but I haven't dug deeply. Maybe I'll try it. Paul1513 20:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Long time no see! hope all is well - I'm back from vacation and my books are unpacked, heh. I've made the fixes that I could at She Shoulda Said No, and I did a rather massive revamping of Mom and Dad last month to try and minimize the identicalness of that and Krog. I think we're close...care to work any further or have I burned you out? -- badlydrawnjeff talk 01:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone outside the Scouting project nom'd Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) for FAC. We knew it wasn't ready but let it run, figuring it's a good way for input. It did improve a lot, but the writing was not up to snuff and that part still needs work. Since you did so well at the last article you copyedited for us, could you look at it for us? You're better than we are at this. I've listed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/proofreading#Requests_for_copy-editing_assistance. Rlevse 12:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be great. Thanks. -- Ann Stouter 08:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! -- Ann Stouter 08:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think an article is justified, the protocols require a player to have played one pro game to be notable. He doesn't seem to have done that or coached at a pro level either. GordyB 10:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
141 is on a roll; see the titillating state of the article Nick Adams, its history from late April (not helped by 141's chronic aversion to edit summaries), and Talk:Nick Adams, in which the fearless shedder of light in the darkest places expostulates: Do you really think that this material isn't encyclopedic? The private life and personal relationships are certainly important parts of a celebrity's history and must therefore be included in a biography etc etc. -- Hoary 05:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
(You wrote)
Hello. I've written a further comment about
Gabriel Fahrenheit at
User talk:Chimichunga333; please take a look at it. --
Hoary 23:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for trusting my judgment rather more than I do. I've tentatively reverted the whole addition -- not just the bit attributed to Giunta but the whole lot. See the article's discussion page. I hope the editor explains, whereupon something can be done with the addition. I'm sorry that you may have wasted your time in working on it. -- Hoary 03:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
(You wrote)
--
Hoary 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)The author's response does look like he/she was WP:BITtEn. The option to remove as G7 is definitely there, but perhaps some words of clarification/explanation on the author's talkpage to explain your intentions and looking how to head on from there might be a better step to take. If his/her response is that he/she still for deletion, then just respect his/her wishes. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 12:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hoary! I would like to nominate you for adminship, is it ok for you? Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 14:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No, fine. I probably shouldn't have blocked him in the first place, I guess. Herostratus 14:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if you were still editing the Elvis page? Has a checkuser ever been done on 141 (onefortone) before per the anonymous users who keep posting ridiculous remarks over the course of the last year and more as possible sockpuppets? Further, I'd welcome any input on improvements there after my revision of format. Thanks. -- Northmeister 17:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Right then. If you change
*[[/Archive22904|FILE22904]]: May 2006-June 2006
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
{| width="100%" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="12"
style="background-color:#f8fcff; border-style:none; border-color:#b2a4c5;"
|align="center" width="100%" style="border-style:solid; border-width:6; border-color:#4F69C6;
background-color:<!--#6B3FA0--><!--#FFCCFF--><!--#e1d1ff;-->#6B3FA0;
color:#F8F4FF;"|'''"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not
to
*[[/Archive22904|FILE22904]]: May 2006-June 2006
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
<div style="clear:both"> </div>
{| width="100%" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="12"
style="background-color:#f8fcff; border-style:none; border-color:#b2a4c5;"
|align="center" width="100%" style="border-style:solid; border-width:6; border-color:#4F69C6;
background-color:<!--#6B3FA0--><!--#FFCCFF--><!--#e1d1ff;-->#6B3FA0;
color:#F8F4FF;"|'''"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not
the result will be completely readable in Konqueror as well as Mozilla. Or to put it another way, the chunk you would profitably add is:
<div style="clear:both"> </div>
I hope this helps. -- Hoary 05:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to proofread? [5] -- Poeticbent talk 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at it, and all I see is a mention of Lomo or Lomography (I forget which).
I presume that the popularity of the Ami increased with that of the Diana, Holga, etc. But these increases in popularity (or fashions, or fads) predated Lomography's involvement. (Yes, Lomography now sells predictably overpriced Holgas, but this is a newish development.)
What interests me more is the name. Would it have reminded the literate Pole (and if I remember right, French was widely known in Poland at that time) of the French word ami, or does it have an additional meaning in Polish? -- Hoary 03:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Well explained for the contributor, by the way. -- Butseriouslyfolks 01:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hoary - I started up the Thomas Barbèy page - I have no connection to the photographer at all (except that I like his work). I noticed that you had proposed the page for deletion on the basis that there were no self interested links. I had one link to an interview with the artist in 'Inked' which I thought helped establish significance - the whole article is viewable on the artist's own web page which is why it links there. Also, I just added a link to an article in Art Business News where Barbey is quoted. I will see if I can find more. Let me know if you think this might be sufficient to remove the delete request? Many thanks for your input! Merteuil 16:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary! I am still quite new to Wikipedia so any help/advice is appreciated! That is also why I was hesitant to remove the proposed delete. I will see if I can find some more disinterested articles too, in order to boost the validity of including the artist as an entry. Merteuil 03:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Koichi Yamadera, the definition of "behalf" is, according to Merriam-Webster: http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/behalf
"A body of opinion favors in with the “interest, benefit” sense of behalf and on with the “support, defense” sense. This distinction has been observed by some writers but overall has never had a sound basis in actual usage. In current British use, on behalf (of) has replaced in behalf (of); both are still used in American English, but the distinction is frequently not observed." - Koichi Yamadera doesn't have to explicitly say "this is how I romanize my name" - The companies, which represent him, do the job for him. WhisperToMe 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for all the work on the page! Actually tomorrow I am leaving for a week to Austin, so I won't be able to look up more facts (but I will be able to do simple edits). Hopefully we are getting closer... -- Honza 11:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. It is appreciated. Intheminors 16:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Hoary. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Kikai persona1.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Hoary. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Hoary. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image ( Image:Minamata Chisso Industrial Waste.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Hoary/Archive07. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Hoary, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image ( Image:Minamata Chisso Industrial Waste.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Hoary/Archive07. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 13:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Good day, Hoary! I recently added a photographer to the fashion section of the photographers articles only to find it deleted. I do not understand why it was deleted. I am the new editor of "Indusrty Tree" a brand new fashion resource guide to the best in"New York Fashion Scene". Including Art Directors, Makeup Artist, Photographers, Stylist... etc. I am planning on adding the top 50 photographers, makeup artists and stylist. This is based on three significant results; Financial Earnings, Current Publications and Contributions, Longevity. Its based solely on the results, not personal feelings or favorites. The Industry Tree webpage will be launching in late August 2007.
The photographers that I will be adding to the Wiki Fashion Section are: Kevin Sinclair, Mark Wimberly & Radek Grossman, Seth Sabal, & Alan Forman. These are the photographers that the top agents and magazines suggested as the new upcoming generation of top photographers, from our questionnaire. My experience as a photo editor at Marie Claire magazine also clearly qualifies me to make that judgement. They are also listed in the Daily (Hearst Publication) as the "Top Newcomers to Fashion."
I strongly agree with you that poorly written, non confirmable content should be deleated instantly. This is NOT the case with the photographers that I am looking to add. I am very interested in working with you on the quality editing of this section! There are in fact people that should not be listed and would love to work with you on fixing that. Please get back to me via my talk page so we can resolve this issue immediatly. Thank you!
.... added at 13:51, 20 May 2007 by User:Industrytree ( contributions)
Thank you for the clarification; I am actually happy that someone is kind enough to edit the through the self-promotional information on Wiki; I will be sure to contact you in the near future when I have the cited sources and documented info for the artists that should be relevant to the fashion photographer section. I will not be adding anyone without your input; your professionalism is knowlege of this system is wonderful. We will be in contact. Thank you again!
I have a quick question, maybe you can help me. How do you suggest I create articles about photographers, makeup artists and stylist that impact the industy tremendously but are not necessarily household names yet. Being the photo editor of a major publication puts me in contact with these artists all the time but I cannot seem to find the NYT or the Post writing articles about them. Do you suggest that I wait for these articals or just site the smaller publications and websites posting this information?
... posted at 17:08, 20 May 2007 by Industrytree
Hey there! Dunno if you're still burned out, but I've pretty much rewritten Robert Benchley from scratch and I'm looking for some input. If you can, I'd love to hear it, I've opened a peer review as well. Hope all is well. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 04:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been without internet access for the past few days, so I didn't read your message until just now. Thanks again, anyway, and sorry for the delay. -- Ann Stouter 20:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Hoary: Thanks for your encouragement last month to continue work on the SLR chronology. However, I think I'm done now, because it's as good as it will get if I am the only one contributing it. As the maxim goes: you can't be your own editor, because you're blind to your own mistakes. I've managed to catch several mistakes since my first posting, but I really need an independent editor to proofread now and tell me what I've forgotten to do. (A Russo-phile has already added a couple of Zenit entries and corrected my Cyrillic transcriptions.) I've also expended an enormous amount of mental effort over the last two months getting the chronology together, and I'm exhausted and out of coherent things to say. So, I invite you, and anyone else you might know, to continue improving it.
In addition, the chronology is becoming very long. I had thought to make a simple timeline of maybe 20 innovative SLRs, with a one or two sentence blurb per entry. If I continue to add to the chronology, it will become a full blown history and Wikipedia already has an SLR history article, flawed though it may be. (It focuses on the post-WW2 35 mm SLR; emphasizes electronic conveniences not specific to the SLR; is Japan-centric, treating the Japanese 35 mm SLR as a teleological inevitability, instead of the long-running and close-fought battle between many formats it really was; and overall, ignores what "single-lens" and "reflex" really means.)
About the Zunow SLR: Production was slower than expected, and there's at least one disastrous design flaw: I've seen a photo of a seriously chewed up gear cog, obviously made of far too soft an alloy. I do not wish in any way to give you the false impression that I'm a Zunow expert, or even a professional photographic historian in general; any more that I would claim to be a professional photographer. I wrote the chronology because my amateur photographer's passion for SLRs coincided with Wikipedia's inadequate SLR history. If you are confident that the Zunow SLR was doomed by design flaws, please correct the chronology.
However, I believe that Zunow was a case of a small company with a good idea, squashed by a bigger corporation with deeper pockets. Any production delays or weak gearing could have been fixed through product improvement analysis, on an "as returned" or recalled basis for units in circulation, or in an corrected version on a reworked production line. Even the Nikon F had big and small internal changes the first few years. If the Zunow SLR had very serious mechanical failures that ruined its reputation, even this is not irrecoverable if Zunow could come up with a "Zunow SLR2." The Canonflex was originally blown away by the Nikon F (like everyone else), but Canon had the wherewithal to keep plugging away for thirty years before gaining ascendancy. Both were apparently beyond Zunow's resources.
Perhaps we could try: "Reliability problems with the camera and weak corporate finances meant that Zunow was unable to capitalize on its design."
About Let me instead invite you to this place ( http://camerapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). I've looked it over and I'm a bit intimidated by it. Some of Camerapedia's posters appear to be hard-core collectors and I don't think I want to compete with their level of obsessive detail. Thanks Muchly Paul1513 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Do you know what was the first SLR with a flash hot shoe? I know the first hot shoe camera of any kind came out in 1938. I also know the hot shoe became a 35 mm SLR standard feature around 1973, but I don't know the first SLR with one. Apparently, the humble hot shoe is so ubiquitous today that nobody notices it. This precisely why I think it deserves to be in the chronology. Paul1513 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I went as far as checking your contributions list to see that you hadn't flown the coop. No sign of you in the FAC and FAR/C rooms! Your email bounces. Has it changed? Tony 07:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I request that you undelete Ivailo Djourov. I think your deletion wasn't correct because of the GFDL notice. And, although the GFDL license isn't specifically stated on the HTML page http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/4445/Artists/cvdjourov.htm , that page can be navigated to from the top page of the site where then the menu with the GFDL license statement remains by going to http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/4445/ and then clicking "Singers" and then clicking the "Ivaylo Djourov" at the bottom of the page where the text of the above page will then be shown, with the GFDL license. Further, the user has written into OTRS stating that this GFDL license statement on the website should be sufficient (and I agree) for the inclusion of the text to be used (notability aside). You can reference OTRS at https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=877791 if you wish to restore the article with that justification, but I don't think it's needed in the first place. If you are unwilling to restore the article for any reason, please let me know (and why) and I can pursue other avenues to restore the article. Thank you for your time. MECU≈ talk 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page.
I've secured semi-protection of this page for ten days because of copyvio posting. Their latest effort is a huge chunk from the WP article on Vivien Leigh, which needs to be cut back severely. If you haven't the time for another look, I'll give it a try. Given your earlier edits, you would probably do the better job! -- Old Moonraker 15:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Hoary: I'm glad that liked my chronology; I've literally spent decades accumulating all of that info and I used some of it to write several individual SLR articles for Wikipedia. I'm happy that at least one other person finds it all interesting too. If you want to "swipe" it, please feel free. I've noticed Camerapedia.org before, but I haven't dug deeply. Maybe I'll try it. Paul1513 20:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Long time no see! hope all is well - I'm back from vacation and my books are unpacked, heh. I've made the fixes that I could at She Shoulda Said No, and I did a rather massive revamping of Mom and Dad last month to try and minimize the identicalness of that and Krog. I think we're close...care to work any further or have I burned you out? -- badlydrawnjeff talk 01:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone outside the Scouting project nom'd Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) for FAC. We knew it wasn't ready but let it run, figuring it's a good way for input. It did improve a lot, but the writing was not up to snuff and that part still needs work. Since you did so well at the last article you copyedited for us, could you look at it for us? You're better than we are at this. I've listed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/proofreading#Requests_for_copy-editing_assistance. Rlevse 12:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be great. Thanks. -- Ann Stouter 08:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! -- Ann Stouter 08:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think an article is justified, the protocols require a player to have played one pro game to be notable. He doesn't seem to have done that or coached at a pro level either. GordyB 10:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
141 is on a roll; see the titillating state of the article Nick Adams, its history from late April (not helped by 141's chronic aversion to edit summaries), and Talk:Nick Adams, in which the fearless shedder of light in the darkest places expostulates: Do you really think that this material isn't encyclopedic? The private life and personal relationships are certainly important parts of a celebrity's history and must therefore be included in a biography etc etc. -- Hoary 05:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
(You wrote)
Hello. I've written a further comment about
Gabriel Fahrenheit at
User talk:Chimichunga333; please take a look at it. --
Hoary 23:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for trusting my judgment rather more than I do. I've tentatively reverted the whole addition -- not just the bit attributed to Giunta but the whole lot. See the article's discussion page. I hope the editor explains, whereupon something can be done with the addition. I'm sorry that you may have wasted your time in working on it. -- Hoary 03:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
(You wrote)
--
Hoary 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)The author's response does look like he/she was WP:BITtEn. The option to remove as G7 is definitely there, but perhaps some words of clarification/explanation on the author's talkpage to explain your intentions and looking how to head on from there might be a better step to take. If his/her response is that he/she still for deletion, then just respect his/her wishes. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 12:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hoary! I would like to nominate you for adminship, is it ok for you? Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 14:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No, fine. I probably shouldn't have blocked him in the first place, I guess. Herostratus 14:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if you were still editing the Elvis page? Has a checkuser ever been done on 141 (onefortone) before per the anonymous users who keep posting ridiculous remarks over the course of the last year and more as possible sockpuppets? Further, I'd welcome any input on improvements there after my revision of format. Thanks. -- Northmeister 17:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Right then. If you change
*[[/Archive22904|FILE22904]]: May 2006-June 2006
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
{| width="100%" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="12"
style="background-color:#f8fcff; border-style:none; border-color:#b2a4c5;"
|align="center" width="100%" style="border-style:solid; border-width:6; border-color:#4F69C6;
background-color:<!--#6B3FA0--><!--#FFCCFF--><!--#e1d1ff;-->#6B3FA0;
color:#F8F4FF;"|'''"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not
to
*[[/Archive22904|FILE22904]]: May 2006-June 2006
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
<div style="clear:both"> </div>
{| width="100%" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="12"
style="background-color:#f8fcff; border-style:none; border-color:#b2a4c5;"
|align="center" width="100%" style="border-style:solid; border-width:6; border-color:#4F69C6;
background-color:<!--#6B3FA0--><!--#FFCCFF--><!--#e1d1ff;-->#6B3FA0;
color:#F8F4FF;"|'''"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not
the result will be completely readable in Konqueror as well as Mozilla. Or to put it another way, the chunk you would profitably add is:
<div style="clear:both"> </div>
I hope this helps. -- Hoary 05:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to proofread? [5] -- Poeticbent talk 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at it, and all I see is a mention of Lomo or Lomography (I forget which).
I presume that the popularity of the Ami increased with that of the Diana, Holga, etc. But these increases in popularity (or fashions, or fads) predated Lomography's involvement. (Yes, Lomography now sells predictably overpriced Holgas, but this is a newish development.)
What interests me more is the name. Would it have reminded the literate Pole (and if I remember right, French was widely known in Poland at that time) of the French word ami, or does it have an additional meaning in Polish? -- Hoary 03:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Well explained for the contributor, by the way. -- Butseriouslyfolks 01:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hoary - I started up the Thomas Barbèy page - I have no connection to the photographer at all (except that I like his work). I noticed that you had proposed the page for deletion on the basis that there were no self interested links. I had one link to an interview with the artist in 'Inked' which I thought helped establish significance - the whole article is viewable on the artist's own web page which is why it links there. Also, I just added a link to an article in Art Business News where Barbey is quoted. I will see if I can find more. Let me know if you think this might be sufficient to remove the delete request? Many thanks for your input! Merteuil 16:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary! I am still quite new to Wikipedia so any help/advice is appreciated! That is also why I was hesitant to remove the proposed delete. I will see if I can find some more disinterested articles too, in order to boost the validity of including the artist as an entry. Merteuil 03:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Koichi Yamadera, the definition of "behalf" is, according to Merriam-Webster: http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/behalf
"A body of opinion favors in with the “interest, benefit” sense of behalf and on with the “support, defense” sense. This distinction has been observed by some writers but overall has never had a sound basis in actual usage. In current British use, on behalf (of) has replaced in behalf (of); both are still used in American English, but the distinction is frequently not observed." - Koichi Yamadera doesn't have to explicitly say "this is how I romanize my name" - The companies, which represent him, do the job for him. WhisperToMe 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for all the work on the page! Actually tomorrow I am leaving for a week to Austin, so I won't be able to look up more facts (but I will be able to do simple edits). Hopefully we are getting closer... -- Honza 11:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. It is appreciated. Intheminors 16:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Hoary. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Kikai persona1.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Hoary. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Hoary. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image ( Image:Minamata Chisso Industrial Waste.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Hoary/Archive07. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Hoary, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image ( Image:Minamata Chisso Industrial Waste.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Hoary/Archive07. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 13:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Good day, Hoary! I recently added a photographer to the fashion section of the photographers articles only to find it deleted. I do not understand why it was deleted. I am the new editor of "Indusrty Tree" a brand new fashion resource guide to the best in"New York Fashion Scene". Including Art Directors, Makeup Artist, Photographers, Stylist... etc. I am planning on adding the top 50 photographers, makeup artists and stylist. This is based on three significant results; Financial Earnings, Current Publications and Contributions, Longevity. Its based solely on the results, not personal feelings or favorites. The Industry Tree webpage will be launching in late August 2007.
The photographers that I will be adding to the Wiki Fashion Section are: Kevin Sinclair, Mark Wimberly & Radek Grossman, Seth Sabal, & Alan Forman. These are the photographers that the top agents and magazines suggested as the new upcoming generation of top photographers, from our questionnaire. My experience as a photo editor at Marie Claire magazine also clearly qualifies me to make that judgement. They are also listed in the Daily (Hearst Publication) as the "Top Newcomers to Fashion."
I strongly agree with you that poorly written, non confirmable content should be deleated instantly. This is NOT the case with the photographers that I am looking to add. I am very interested in working with you on the quality editing of this section! There are in fact people that should not be listed and would love to work with you on fixing that. Please get back to me via my talk page so we can resolve this issue immediatly. Thank you!
.... added at 13:51, 20 May 2007 by User:Industrytree ( contributions)
Thank you for the clarification; I am actually happy that someone is kind enough to edit the through the self-promotional information on Wiki; I will be sure to contact you in the near future when I have the cited sources and documented info for the artists that should be relevant to the fashion photographer section. I will not be adding anyone without your input; your professionalism is knowlege of this system is wonderful. We will be in contact. Thank you again!
I have a quick question, maybe you can help me. How do you suggest I create articles about photographers, makeup artists and stylist that impact the industy tremendously but are not necessarily household names yet. Being the photo editor of a major publication puts me in contact with these artists all the time but I cannot seem to find the NYT or the Post writing articles about them. Do you suggest that I wait for these articals or just site the smaller publications and websites posting this information?
... posted at 17:08, 20 May 2007 by Industrytree
Hey there! Dunno if you're still burned out, but I've pretty much rewritten Robert Benchley from scratch and I'm looking for some input. If you can, I'd love to hear it, I've opened a peer review as well. Hope all is well. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 04:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been without internet access for the past few days, so I didn't read your message until just now. Thanks again, anyway, and sorry for the delay. -- Ann Stouter 20:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Hoary: Thanks for your encouragement last month to continue work on the SLR chronology. However, I think I'm done now, because it's as good as it will get if I am the only one contributing it. As the maxim goes: you can't be your own editor, because you're blind to your own mistakes. I've managed to catch several mistakes since my first posting, but I really need an independent editor to proofread now and tell me what I've forgotten to do. (A Russo-phile has already added a couple of Zenit entries and corrected my Cyrillic transcriptions.) I've also expended an enormous amount of mental effort over the last two months getting the chronology together, and I'm exhausted and out of coherent things to say. So, I invite you, and anyone else you might know, to continue improving it.
In addition, the chronology is becoming very long. I had thought to make a simple timeline of maybe 20 innovative SLRs, with a one or two sentence blurb per entry. If I continue to add to the chronology, it will become a full blown history and Wikipedia already has an SLR history article, flawed though it may be. (It focuses on the post-WW2 35 mm SLR; emphasizes electronic conveniences not specific to the SLR; is Japan-centric, treating the Japanese 35 mm SLR as a teleological inevitability, instead of the long-running and close-fought battle between many formats it really was; and overall, ignores what "single-lens" and "reflex" really means.)
About the Zunow SLR: Production was slower than expected, and there's at least one disastrous design flaw: I've seen a photo of a seriously chewed up gear cog, obviously made of far too soft an alloy. I do not wish in any way to give you the false impression that I'm a Zunow expert, or even a professional photographic historian in general; any more that I would claim to be a professional photographer. I wrote the chronology because my amateur photographer's passion for SLRs coincided with Wikipedia's inadequate SLR history. If you are confident that the Zunow SLR was doomed by design flaws, please correct the chronology.
However, I believe that Zunow was a case of a small company with a good idea, squashed by a bigger corporation with deeper pockets. Any production delays or weak gearing could have been fixed through product improvement analysis, on an "as returned" or recalled basis for units in circulation, or in an corrected version on a reworked production line. Even the Nikon F had big and small internal changes the first few years. If the Zunow SLR had very serious mechanical failures that ruined its reputation, even this is not irrecoverable if Zunow could come up with a "Zunow SLR2." The Canonflex was originally blown away by the Nikon F (like everyone else), but Canon had the wherewithal to keep plugging away for thirty years before gaining ascendancy. Both were apparently beyond Zunow's resources.
Perhaps we could try: "Reliability problems with the camera and weak corporate finances meant that Zunow was unable to capitalize on its design."
About Let me instead invite you to this place ( http://camerapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). I've looked it over and I'm a bit intimidated by it. Some of Camerapedia's posters appear to be hard-core collectors and I don't think I want to compete with their level of obsessive detail. Thanks Muchly Paul1513 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Do you know what was the first SLR with a flash hot shoe? I know the first hot shoe camera of any kind came out in 1938. I also know the hot shoe became a 35 mm SLR standard feature around 1973, but I don't know the first SLR with one. Apparently, the humble hot shoe is so ubiquitous today that nobody notices it. This precisely why I think it deserves to be in the chronology. Paul1513 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I went as far as checking your contributions list to see that you hadn't flown the coop. No sign of you in the FAC and FAR/C rooms! Your email bounces. Has it changed? Tony 07:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I request that you undelete Ivailo Djourov. I think your deletion wasn't correct because of the GFDL notice. And, although the GFDL license isn't specifically stated on the HTML page http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/4445/Artists/cvdjourov.htm , that page can be navigated to from the top page of the site where then the menu with the GFDL license statement remains by going to http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/4445/ and then clicking "Singers" and then clicking the "Ivaylo Djourov" at the bottom of the page where the text of the above page will then be shown, with the GFDL license. Further, the user has written into OTRS stating that this GFDL license statement on the website should be sufficient (and I agree) for the inclusion of the text to be used (notability aside). You can reference OTRS at https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=877791 if you wish to restore the article with that justification, but I don't think it's needed in the first place. If you are unwilling to restore the article for any reason, please let me know (and why) and I can pursue other avenues to restore the article. Thank you for your time. MECU≈ talk 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)