This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Great work on the article! Doniago ( talk) 20:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lopifalko! I have recently re-written Exposing to the right and would appreciate some feedback, if you have the time. Even a cursory glance to see if I've made any glaring errors would be enough. Thank you in advance. Regards, nagualdesign ( talk) 09:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stay civil. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your good additions to the Mark Power article. English-language Wikipedia has very weak coverage of photographers and benefits from all the help it gets. Power's article was for a long time particularly unfortunate as it was the object of some energetic nitwit's tiresome fantasy that Power was born in 1979 and in other ways differed from the real-life Power who's of encyclopedic concern. (I'd guess that the nitwit either was, or had a friend who was, some unremarkable Mark Power, b.1979.)
I see that you've also written about Simon Roberts. Unfortunately I have little to add on either Power or Roberts (which is not intended as criticism of either; actually I bought [and kept!] two of Roberts' books). If you work on the article about another photographer, let me know and I'll help if I can. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
My new changes to the article on Meyerowitz. Unfortunately I started with the assumption that there was only one Aftermath book. I later noticed that there were two. (I haven't seen either.) Do please have a look at the article to see whether it now misinforms about one or both (and of course to see if I've made any other mistake). -- Hoary ( talk) 00:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi and happy new year. Erm, you're not the first person to confuse Mark Power with Mark Power. See this autobio. (For more traps for the unwary, see this, not excluding the comments it gets.) Incidentally, I think that this older Mark Power deserves an article too. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad it didn't come off as "Wikistalking". ¶ "The Salt Mine" is/was a superb blog, and I very much hope that there are new entries. It's one of several blogs whose demise (or moribundity) is noted here. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Today I made my first edit to Edward Olive, not a photographer I'd ever heard of before but instead somebody who popped up in a search through Wikipedia for another photographer who'd won a great wedding photographer award. Olive seems to have won more awards than, say, Henri Cartier-Bresson! -- Hoary ( talk) 13:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Apropos of crap articles on photographers, see Irakly Shanidze (and its talk page). -- Hoary ( talk) 01:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
A note on Winogrand: Exhibitions too must be sourced. ( Here's an example of how it's done; notice how the [living] photographer's own website is not used as a source.) Yes of course this is terribly tedious work. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't look at the history of the Winogrand article and so don't know who it was who sourced a lot of material to this blog post. The blogger has tried hard and the post looks good. However, this is not good enough: we cannot depend on blogs.
I don't know how it is that answers.com has the rights to republish the Oxford Companion to the Photograph, but apparently it does, and Winogrand is here. And that's just a start: there's an enormous amount of other material available. There's no need to resort to blogs. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Nice job! Wwwhatsup ( talk) 08:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Dench is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Dench until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Claret Ash 06:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Good question. No real reason. However, if it went, this would call into question List of photographers, which is handy for editors as a way to see some of what's new and particularly what's new spam or other junk. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Some of the links your removed i think should be add back in because some of the kpop artists/agencies have multilanguage websites for different audience. official website stop updating once the group done with their comeback. social media updates news about the group on current events quicker and also somethings are not updated thru website and etc...
On the Endorsements since i'm her fan i know those endorsements are notable, i would appreciate if you stop delete them again, thanks. -- Lpmfx ( talk) 17:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,I m Mukta Sawant from India. And thinking of creating Wikiproject page 4 Justin Bieber.If u wish 2 help me reply it on ur page & pls I wanna Listen yes ( 116.203.68.29 ( talk) 12:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC))
Fast! I can only suppose that you were alerted by the same email that I received, and that you received it for the same reason. (Me, I don't know where I'm going to store all the damn books that I'm promised by emphas.is and Kickstarter.) -- Hoary ( talk) 14:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Essential reading. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I hesitate to say this now that you've bought all the books, but I do wonder if their prices will go up. Some books have gone up a lot, yes, and of course now that I know this I'd like to take a short vacation to 1985 or so and visit a bookshop with a thick wad of cash. In general, though, I doubt it. Yes, people seem to go bonkers over every book by Lee Friedlander, but I'm not sure that the new books of many other famous older photographers are similar. (Well, the reprint Fukase's Karasu ["Crows"], perhaps. And the reprint of Kawada's Chizu ["The Map"].) Indeed, I recently bought a copy of the first edition of Falkland Road for less than the new edition would have cost me. But no matter, because Subway is a fine book: even if the price doesn't rise, you should enjoy it. Incidentally, if your shelf and floor will take the weight, Davidson's Outside/Inside is superb too: quite a lot of money, but the price pays for a great quantity of excellent reproductions. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I re-wrote it to more accurately describe why it's essential this be included on Grimes wiki page. Grimes specifically created a music piece of her lesser known and generally difficult to find music and artist influences. It's an original work by Grimes and goes far and beyond the scope of the list of artists she has merely mentioned in a few interviews. If you could re-add the second edit I made that would be much appreciated. Thanks! Troggo11 ( talk) 21:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
hello, you deleted the photo i added to the street photographer page as self promotion? The photo was by a photographer named Fraser Reid, not me.............. he is a well known Scottish Street Photographer. I have undone your deletion as I have no idea where your "self promotion" pon int os coming from. happy to discuss further if required — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freidster ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I can assure you fraser reid is well known, he studdied with me at glasgow school of art, and hold exhibitions constantly. just because someone does not have a web presence does not mean they are not know. he is known in my country, you are clearly not an authority on this, so why not stick to your justin beiber articles. just who do you think you are!!! I'll be taking this further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freidster ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
What are you deleting my articles??? whats your problem here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freidster ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I've never heard of Kevin Meredith, sounds like just a guy who uses a lomography camera. Therefore using your justification for deleting fraser reid's page, I have flagged his for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freidster ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nice Lopifalko. We run into this in all sorts of local talents that do this. The whole Utica / Joe Bonamassa page is a larger example. I feel your pain hehe! CutThruTheNoise ( talk) 09:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, good work on the Cooz Allen /Ed Snowden stuff they are already trying to revise history on WIki I'd love to see someone help keep attention on it I think that page is going to become spook troll central. CutThruTheNoise ( talk) 09:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Lopi! I saw this change in the Red Wings external links. The problem is that this is essential information about the accident (a page from the accident investigation agency) but there is no English version available. In these EL lists some foreign language links need to remain WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that Shōmei Tōmatsu has died. I think that it was only today that anyone outside the family knew about this, but news sources -- Asahi, now cited in the article here, and Yomiuri, cited in the even feebler stub in Japanese Wikipedia -- agree that he died on 14 December. (This kind of delay isn't unusual: cf Kineo Kuwabara.) -- Hoary ( talk) 09:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I wondered what WP might say about the shift toward colo(u)r photography among the kinds of photographers who'd previously rather looked down on it. I was sure we'd be given the same old, star-dazzled stuff about Eggleston, Shore, Parr, etc. But I hoped also to read about Outerbridge, Leiter, and others.
Uh, no. It's even worse than I'd feared.
I ought to redo this. But I'm so lazy busy. Now, if only some other person happened to be interested too, so that there were two of us. . . .
Hoary (
talk)
12:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your article about Laura Pannack. I reviewed the article and placed a couple of tags where citations are needed. It looks good, keep up the great work!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 19:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I noticed your recent minor change on this article and wonder if you can help.
Talk:Slashdot#WP:BOLD_readability_changes_to_lead
Jump straight to last entry. WykiP ( talk) 01:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. It seems like you have totally depreciated the article about Hed Kandi record label. It definitely did not break wiki rules by no manner of means. It was just the whole discography of HK according to series and releases. It is like as if you deleted all releases of some musicians in one or more years and instead of that simply wrote that for example 5 albums were released in year xy and 5 in year yx, but without mentioning of what exactly was it. I do not consider the article as an indiscriminate excessive list. Sorry but I can not accept that. Can you please undo your changes. I have no time and moood to revert it :( Thanks in advance.
Good work, thank you.
I'd previously noticed that a lot of the "sourced information" either was sourced to the website run by/for the biographee or simply wasn't in the sources that were adduced. Removing the factoids and deceptions took a fair amount of time. I also wiped out some trivia, but tired before the job was complete.
I noticed something odd about the article. Virtually all, or perhaps all, of the credits are to Klinko and Indrani, and suggest that Indrani is number two. Yet Klinko doesn't have an article, Indrani had a hagiography, and a lot of the exaggerations and misreadings in the article emphasized Indrani at the expense of Klinko. Notably, it suggested that the pair of them started photography from zero together, citing a source that made it clear that Klinko had already started.
The article has been most added to by a contributor of more or less promotional material to a cluster of related articles. I haven't looked much at them, but have removed obvious excrescences ("legendary", etc) from one or two.
What puzzles me is whether Indrani is actually a photographer to any significant degree. I get the impression that she's Klinko's stylist (arranging the sitters and putting them at ease) and perhaps also assistant cameraman. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Argh, preventing this article from becoming still worse seems to be the equivalent of one editor's full-time job. A variety of problems obviously remain -- but my bed looks too inviting, so I'm clocking off for now. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't think you would mind, so I added a colon to prevent your user page from being categorized into i:Category:Cleanup templates. Senator2029 ➔ “Talk” 00:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I found this edit from March of 2013. I reverted it now because it removed an important detail that must be included in every article about a company (the information about Dropbox Inc. is included in Dropbox (service) so it is about the company as much as it is about the service. On top of that, San Francisco newspapers found it worthy to report on the headquarters of Dropbox. Ed Lee, Mayor of San Francisco, said after Dropbox moved: "While the state and the nation are focused on jobs and the economy, San Francisco’s economy rumbles forward – adding new jobs thanks to the growth of firms like Dropbox. Dropbox’s move is a significant expansion which continues the steady drumbeat of innovative, talent-driven companies which start, stay and grow right here in San Francisco." ( from this article, this detail was present but another user had removed it) WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain making edits as you did on Anna Calvi. Just because you aren't interested in something doesn't mean it isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Heat-seeker charts and charts like it from countries around the world are used extensively on Wikipedia. Goodbye (Kristinia DeBarge song) is just one example of many examples, except in that case it is the Australian Hit-seeker chart. Please feel free to take the US Heat-seeker info off of Anna's discography though when she has charted on the official main US Billboard 200 albums chart. Thank you for using Wikipedia! Jacobjimmy2000 ( talk) 22:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. In this diff you're deleting a link from the Wikipedia page about Darktable to the Github page about Darktable, saying that it's "not appropriate for Wikipedia to include a link to it". I disagree; I think it is extremely appropriate, indeed essential. I am restoring the link you deleted (in the "External Links" section), and annotating the link to the old version of the project's source code. If you still think linking to the project that the page is about is not appropriate, please explain your reasoning on the article's talk page when reverting my change. Kragen Javier Sitaker ( talk) 23:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to explain my edit. I think I meant to say British curator in the persondata section, but since Mr. Lewis works with photographs I was thinking photographer. The source would be the article itself. It calls him a curator. I would also like to know why my addition of the authority control template was reverted. It is a good faith edit and part of a project to add authority data to Wikipedia articles. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Authority_control
Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.--FeanorStar7 14:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this and feel free to disagree (or even agree). -- Hoary ( talk) 13:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Though polite and well-intended, this edit sets off warning lights. I'm not going to bother to look at the edit history it refers to, but if I understand it correctly, it says something uncomfortably close to "You and I have edit-warred. But, in contrast to me, the change you want effected to the article is wrong. And therefore you can be had up for edit warring. So cut it out and let me win the war!"
Ah, no. Other than in very particular circumstances (e.g. battling some dimwit who wants to add " Eric is a fag!"), edit warring is edit warring, whether you're on the wrong or (in your considered opinion) the right side.
Yes of course there are times when it's blazingly obvious (to me, anyway) that I want to improve an article and my adversary, though not an out-and-out vandal, wants to degrade it. When this happens, I request an additional pair of eyes. And not those of somebody I know (which might look like canvassing) but instead on some relevant Wikipedia talk page. For starters (before a problem gets serious), here's the talk page of WikiProject History of photography, which is moribund but needn't remain so. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm the author of Henrik Purienne Thanks for updating! You seem to be experienced in the field of the arts and photography? Would be a great help if you have any suggestions to prevent deletion of this article. Thanks! Silverhaze — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverhaze01 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
An excellent article on Winship. Well done! (Sez the creatoran author of the article on her husband.)
Meanwile, irrelevantly to that . . . an edit summary: Added autobiography tag. Article created by user [A], which resembles [B] herself, and it still resembles that first draft. Yes, [A] does indeed resemble [B], and that draft does resemble the one written by [A]. However, Template:Autobiography/doc says: This message should only be used when autobiographical content has been confirmed. It should never be used when doing so would reveal the identity of a pseudonymous Wikipedia user. Violating the privacy of users by revealing their real names or other personal information can result in an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia. Remember that although a fan of [B] should not give themself a name suggesting that they are [B], they might nevertheless do so.
Template:Autobiography/doc doesn't say more, but for a closely related template, Template:COI/doc says: Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other {{pov}} tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame.) -- Hoary ( talk) 13:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC) .... mistake fixed 06:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm starting to work on something. But I have virtually no independent sources. If you can dig up any, do let me know. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for overworking Frank Rocholl. I´ve added a publications listing and a few links that verifies the guys expertise in typography, logo design and editorial design. Hopefully it proofs his relevance besides Mirage Magazine. These titles are all standard literature for graphic designers, especially the Los Logos Series.
- Silverhaze ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverhaze01 ( talk • contribs) 00:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
On this: Turner is dead, unfortunately.
Do you have any ideas of where to look for a second source? -- Hoary ( talk) 14:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent, substantive additions to Peter Turner (writer and photographer), but I remain puzzled. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. The only assertions that don't purport to have sources are (i) "Its publications included the first edition of Chris Steele-Perkins' The Teds" and (ii) the content of the section "Books by Turner". The literate reader (and it's hard to imagine anybody else being interested in Turner) will know that the content of both (i) and (ii), if true, can be verified via Worldcat. Of course, some of it is imaginably not true, and can be challenged. Do you think that I should provide sources (e.g. links to Worldcat records) for each of these? (This isn't something I've bothered to do previously, or that others much do.) As for what does purport to be sourced, is some of it in reality unsourced? If so, this would normally call for Template:Failed verification. Or is the problem that almost everything's from a single source? If so (and if this were a problem), this would normally call for Template:One source". The doc for the latter template tells us: "A single source is not automatically a problem. Good judgment and common sense should be used." The doc for Template:Refimprove goes further: "If an article has exactly one source and that single source is likely to result in bias or other problems in the article (e.g., it cites one fringe-y book instead of a good textbook), then use {{ One source}}" (original emphasis). -- Hoary ( talk) 06:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It's hardly surprising that when you wrote this you'd no idea that " Afrapix" already existed (kind of). (It was only later moved into article space.) But the article needs, and the subject merits, a lot more work. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I've always avoided making links such as Unpopular Culture: Grayson Perry Selects from the [[Arts Council Collection]], because it looks odd to me and (to follow this example) jabbing at the words "Arts Council Collection" on the book's title page does not take one to the Arts Council.
Also, I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the " Manual of style" we're told not to do this, but am too lazy to look.
I'll concede that an obvious workaround --
-- is cumbersome. Well, perhaps we can simply link a bit less.
You've been doing a lot of good work recently. Thank you! Returning to your early edits for a moment, did you ever get a copy of Peter Dench's England Uncensored? I did, before the collapse of Emphas.is; if you didn't, the man has copies for sale.
Now, somebody with more time and energy than me could do a lot worse than start an article on this bloke. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I too have a lists-versus-descriptions problem. I start with the lists because publication details of the books don't need sourcing and the exhibitions can be sourced fairly easily and thereupon add up to a monstrous pile of references that ought to impress any numbskull who might otherwise claim that the photographer is not noteworthy. But just getting this far can easily exhaust my patience. Plus the descriptions part is a lot harder to do -- I have to be wide awake, and scrupulously avoid "original synthesis" and miscellaneous other pitfalls.
Ken Grant has two books coming out pretty soon, and both look interesting. And the one that's already published is certainly worth the money. As it has escaped inclusion in Parr/Badger 3, its price isn't likely to shoot up, so no rush. -- Hoary ( talk) 22:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
-- that I can't pretend is about Parr.
O'Hagan writes that Artists do what they do and the rest of us try to keep up or make sense of what they do. But most of the rest of us don't. Most of us haven't the slightest interest. Which in itself is hardly surprising, as most of us have at no time had the slightest interest in the work of Chris Killip, who O'Hagan presents as the antithesis of today's "artists". (Me personally? The degree of my uninterest.) Clearly a critic of what's still called photography should pay some attention to the phenomenon of books and exhibitions consisting of stuff obtained from Google street view, if only because (justifiably or otherwise) there's so much excitement over it; but I don't think that a critic should feel obliged to pay attention to everything touted by this or that gallery, curator or other critic as an "interrogation of the medium of photography", not least because these "interrogations" are often so limp (and the "conceptual" is based on such banal concepts). Still, it can be interesting to read about these "interrogations", even if the results are so often so uninteresting.
But back to Miserachs' work (less interesting to read about than many "interrogations", more interesting to look at): I haven't see this particular PHotoBolsillo book, but the others in the series that I have seen are good in their very compact way, like the Fototorst series. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation. I'd been going to do just that earlier (and with an entirely innocent purpose), but you didn't/don't have an email link. Meanwhile, I'm here. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't feel that way to me. It might do, if it were phrased differently; and perhaps even the phrasing that was used and deleted wasn't the best. But it seemed pretty much OK to me.
The article on Narelle Autio doesn't mention her husband till its third paragraph; but when you get to the (incomplete?) list of her exhibitions and note that every one of them was done with him, the earlier omission seems a bit odd. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! What do you mean by " That is incorrect syntax for the External Links section"? I thought machine readable URLs are preferred over (almost) bare URLs. That is, one can extract metadata more easily when URLs are embedded in {{cite}} templates. -- 2001:470:67:E9:2C2:C6FF:FE3A:C302 ( talk) 17:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
these books? (I only have one, and have easy access to only three more.) I've a hunch that direct examination of the books might reveal a few more odds and sods, eg about corporate largesse. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
number 76,235 (or thereabouts). -- Hoary ( talk) 09:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, after I'd made this edit to the article on Hornstra I looked more closely at its history and realized that my edit summary was inaccurate and unjustifiably dismissive of edits by others, particularly you. Thank you for all the link-updating, etc.
That said, there's a considerable amount of work to be done there. I plan to resume soon, but the entire job will take time. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lopifalko, thanks for your edits on Vivian Maier. I reverted one edit you made, deleting material about her working practice as nanny and street photographer. I have initiated discussion of this mater on Maier Talk page. Best, Mick gold ( talk) 17:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Installment no. 39838 (or so): this. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello. As you are the source of the ISBN of "Willy Ronis: Photographs, 1926-1995" in this edit you may well have an interest in whether it should be "fixed". In particular, if you still have access to this work it would help if you could confirm that the invalid number is as-printed and whether the work contains an alternate valid ISBN anywhere. In these cases I often find that the ISBN is printed incorrectly in the front matter but is correct in the barcode and/or on the cover. TuxLibNit ( talk) 22:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I would be thankful if you explain why you deleted this section, Lopifalko:
1. from external links, links on official pages of award from social media? according to your articles, they almost all include this information. so what's wrong in that information here? (ex: Photography and the Archive Research Centre, Paul Reas)
so, want to back it
agreed, then waiting for your comments about others items.-- Leshavskaya ( talk) 19:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
2. "Conditions" - ' Far too detailed for Wikipedia' - This is information directly related to award. it is fixed. also, this is a distinction, about who can take a part. and also it occupied 4 lines... also, in this Examples such information contains Pulitzer Prize, Nobel Prize. so, want to back it
3. "International collaboration / exhibitions / lectures" - ' Meaningless detail' - This detail talk about international cooperation. This detail talk about scale of international award. Also, your article Photography and the Archive Research Centre including such 'Meaningless detail' so, want to back it.
4. "Reason of creation" "Main award goals" - 'Reason of creation: Hyperbole' - here example, where 'such unimportant info' and 'Hyperbole' names as 'history' Pulitzer Prize, Nobel Prize. If you think 'history' would be sounds better, it could be renamed on 'history'. so, want to back it and waiting for your answer about to combine it and rename 'history'.
I’ll try to make text better as soon as I can (on the weekends) -- Leshavskaya ( talk) 18:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
'Main award goals:
Removed unimportant info'
5. About ‘This article needs additional citations for verification’ - I would be appreciate if you said what exactly ref you need? What information they should contain? And I will gladly to find them.
Do you agree? -- Leshavskaya ( talk) 18:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Waiting for your answer. --
Leshavskaya (
talk)
10:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok. thanks, will be waiting -- Leshavskaya ( talk) 16:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed on your User page that you think the article "
Photoworks" could be deleted. This is to let you know that I have moved (renamed) that article to
PhotoWorks (ray tracing software). So now "Photoworks" is a redirect to "PhotoWorks (ray tracing software)". I'm considering two things that could be done with the redirect page, and was wondering if you had an opinion: (1) Turn it into a disambiguation page that would list "Photoworks (agency)" and "PhotoWorks (ray tracing software)"; (2) Request that the "Photoworks" redirect page be deleted. Then we could move (rename) "Photoworks (agency)" to be simply "Photoworks". What do you think?
I suspect that most people who type "photoworks" are looking for the agency. But I could be wrong. PhotoWorks is an old software module and apparently it isn't being supplied with the main program anymore. But there may still be some users out there. So if the agency article was titled simply "Photoworks", then we probably have to add a hatnote, like the one you added to the old "Photoworks". (BTW, I noticed that the
Wonga link on your User page goes to a disamb page. You might want to change that to
Wonga.com) Thanks. --
Margin1522 (
talk)
13:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Please stop putting back my date of birth. I am a filmmaker and photographer and would really prefer to have my birthday not mentioned. Thanks. Roy Stuart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.170.180.53 ( talk) 09:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I have expanded the Musée Réattu article and added references. Would you agree to remove the GNG tag? Thank you. Olivier ( talk) 16:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rencontres d'Arles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anders Petersen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! It looks much better after your conscientious edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Interesting ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Zhang Xiao: my creation, today. I congratulate myself.
Whew, that took ages. (And the result is thoroughly uninteresting.) I think it's partly because I'm out of practice: the last time I'd created an article was back in May.
Right, now I'm off to eat. Do please feel free to improve "my" new article: not necessarily today, of course, but you'd be welcome today too. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
On 18 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article PC Music, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that record label PC Music has never produced a physical release? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/PC Music. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lopifalko. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal talk 02:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to make them (somebody else will, eventually); but on the off-chance that you'd like to do so, here's how it's done. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Lopifalko, in the field of science David Solomons is quite a influential accountant scholar, see here, which makes the single term "David Solomons" quite ambiguous. One solution in such a case is make a link to the other page, which I made here. Since you didn't agree, I followed WP:D and created a disambiguation page. -- Mdd ( talk) 10:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
My mistake. I thought the date was 1830. GoodDay ( talk) 20:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Your summary: nope! Wikipedia is designed to be scraped and recycled elsewhere. What's Wikipedia to you and me can be legitimately splattered with commercials and recycled as buyourerectiledysfunctionsnakeoilpedia.biz, as long as this outfit retains the copyleft notices. I'm sure there's a guideline somewhere (in MoS?) that explains the odd fact that Wikipedia articles treat Wikipedia as just as alien as, say, Britannica, but right now I'm too tired to look for it, sorry. (Perhaps you can guess why....) -- Hoary ( talk) 13:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Several iconic Photographs by PJG have been added to Wiki Commons for the first time ever. More will follow soon. But for now, why not add these images to the PJG article? Thanks!
File:Boy destroying piano.jpg|Boy destroying piano
File:VNC Female.jpg|VNC Female
Jason.nlw ( talk) 19:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello again. Thanks so much for adding the Philip Jones Griffiths pictures to Wikipedia! I thought you might like to know that I have just uploaded 100 very early Welsh photographs. Most are taken by the Dillwyn Llywelyn family. Search 'Category:Early Swansea Photography' on Commons. Also online now are some 450 Geoff Charles images from 1940-1960ish. Search 'Category:Photographs by Geoff Charles'. Thanks again. Jason.nlw ( talk) 16:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the excellent work on the Campany article. I'm still very busy with "RL"; but you may hate to know that I've found the time to splatter this lovely article of yours with a few SGML comments. Just search for "<!‑‑", of course. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Lopifalko,
The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you were one of the very first testers of VisualEditor, back in 2012 or early 2013. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work better for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.
You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.
More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.
Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Great work on the article! Doniago ( talk) 20:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lopifalko! I have recently re-written Exposing to the right and would appreciate some feedback, if you have the time. Even a cursory glance to see if I've made any glaring errors would be enough. Thank you in advance. Regards, nagualdesign ( talk) 09:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stay civil. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your good additions to the Mark Power article. English-language Wikipedia has very weak coverage of photographers and benefits from all the help it gets. Power's article was for a long time particularly unfortunate as it was the object of some energetic nitwit's tiresome fantasy that Power was born in 1979 and in other ways differed from the real-life Power who's of encyclopedic concern. (I'd guess that the nitwit either was, or had a friend who was, some unremarkable Mark Power, b.1979.)
I see that you've also written about Simon Roberts. Unfortunately I have little to add on either Power or Roberts (which is not intended as criticism of either; actually I bought [and kept!] two of Roberts' books). If you work on the article about another photographer, let me know and I'll help if I can. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
My new changes to the article on Meyerowitz. Unfortunately I started with the assumption that there was only one Aftermath book. I later noticed that there were two. (I haven't seen either.) Do please have a look at the article to see whether it now misinforms about one or both (and of course to see if I've made any other mistake). -- Hoary ( talk) 00:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi and happy new year. Erm, you're not the first person to confuse Mark Power with Mark Power. See this autobio. (For more traps for the unwary, see this, not excluding the comments it gets.) Incidentally, I think that this older Mark Power deserves an article too. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad it didn't come off as "Wikistalking". ¶ "The Salt Mine" is/was a superb blog, and I very much hope that there are new entries. It's one of several blogs whose demise (or moribundity) is noted here. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Today I made my first edit to Edward Olive, not a photographer I'd ever heard of before but instead somebody who popped up in a search through Wikipedia for another photographer who'd won a great wedding photographer award. Olive seems to have won more awards than, say, Henri Cartier-Bresson! -- Hoary ( talk) 13:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Apropos of crap articles on photographers, see Irakly Shanidze (and its talk page). -- Hoary ( talk) 01:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
A note on Winogrand: Exhibitions too must be sourced. ( Here's an example of how it's done; notice how the [living] photographer's own website is not used as a source.) Yes of course this is terribly tedious work. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't look at the history of the Winogrand article and so don't know who it was who sourced a lot of material to this blog post. The blogger has tried hard and the post looks good. However, this is not good enough: we cannot depend on blogs.
I don't know how it is that answers.com has the rights to republish the Oxford Companion to the Photograph, but apparently it does, and Winogrand is here. And that's just a start: there's an enormous amount of other material available. There's no need to resort to blogs. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Nice job! Wwwhatsup ( talk) 08:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Dench is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Dench until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Claret Ash 06:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Good question. No real reason. However, if it went, this would call into question List of photographers, which is handy for editors as a way to see some of what's new and particularly what's new spam or other junk. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Some of the links your removed i think should be add back in because some of the kpop artists/agencies have multilanguage websites for different audience. official website stop updating once the group done with their comeback. social media updates news about the group on current events quicker and also somethings are not updated thru website and etc...
On the Endorsements since i'm her fan i know those endorsements are notable, i would appreciate if you stop delete them again, thanks. -- Lpmfx ( talk) 17:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,I m Mukta Sawant from India. And thinking of creating Wikiproject page 4 Justin Bieber.If u wish 2 help me reply it on ur page & pls I wanna Listen yes ( 116.203.68.29 ( talk) 12:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC))
Fast! I can only suppose that you were alerted by the same email that I received, and that you received it for the same reason. (Me, I don't know where I'm going to store all the damn books that I'm promised by emphas.is and Kickstarter.) -- Hoary ( talk) 14:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Essential reading. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I hesitate to say this now that you've bought all the books, but I do wonder if their prices will go up. Some books have gone up a lot, yes, and of course now that I know this I'd like to take a short vacation to 1985 or so and visit a bookshop with a thick wad of cash. In general, though, I doubt it. Yes, people seem to go bonkers over every book by Lee Friedlander, but I'm not sure that the new books of many other famous older photographers are similar. (Well, the reprint Fukase's Karasu ["Crows"], perhaps. And the reprint of Kawada's Chizu ["The Map"].) Indeed, I recently bought a copy of the first edition of Falkland Road for less than the new edition would have cost me. But no matter, because Subway is a fine book: even if the price doesn't rise, you should enjoy it. Incidentally, if your shelf and floor will take the weight, Davidson's Outside/Inside is superb too: quite a lot of money, but the price pays for a great quantity of excellent reproductions. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I re-wrote it to more accurately describe why it's essential this be included on Grimes wiki page. Grimes specifically created a music piece of her lesser known and generally difficult to find music and artist influences. It's an original work by Grimes and goes far and beyond the scope of the list of artists she has merely mentioned in a few interviews. If you could re-add the second edit I made that would be much appreciated. Thanks! Troggo11 ( talk) 21:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
hello, you deleted the photo i added to the street photographer page as self promotion? The photo was by a photographer named Fraser Reid, not me.............. he is a well known Scottish Street Photographer. I have undone your deletion as I have no idea where your "self promotion" pon int os coming from. happy to discuss further if required — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freidster ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I can assure you fraser reid is well known, he studdied with me at glasgow school of art, and hold exhibitions constantly. just because someone does not have a web presence does not mean they are not know. he is known in my country, you are clearly not an authority on this, so why not stick to your justin beiber articles. just who do you think you are!!! I'll be taking this further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freidster ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
What are you deleting my articles??? whats your problem here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freidster ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I've never heard of Kevin Meredith, sounds like just a guy who uses a lomography camera. Therefore using your justification for deleting fraser reid's page, I have flagged his for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freidster ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nice Lopifalko. We run into this in all sorts of local talents that do this. The whole Utica / Joe Bonamassa page is a larger example. I feel your pain hehe! CutThruTheNoise ( talk) 09:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, good work on the Cooz Allen /Ed Snowden stuff they are already trying to revise history on WIki I'd love to see someone help keep attention on it I think that page is going to become spook troll central. CutThruTheNoise ( talk) 09:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Lopi! I saw this change in the Red Wings external links. The problem is that this is essential information about the accident (a page from the accident investigation agency) but there is no English version available. In these EL lists some foreign language links need to remain WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that Shōmei Tōmatsu has died. I think that it was only today that anyone outside the family knew about this, but news sources -- Asahi, now cited in the article here, and Yomiuri, cited in the even feebler stub in Japanese Wikipedia -- agree that he died on 14 December. (This kind of delay isn't unusual: cf Kineo Kuwabara.) -- Hoary ( talk) 09:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I wondered what WP might say about the shift toward colo(u)r photography among the kinds of photographers who'd previously rather looked down on it. I was sure we'd be given the same old, star-dazzled stuff about Eggleston, Shore, Parr, etc. But I hoped also to read about Outerbridge, Leiter, and others.
Uh, no. It's even worse than I'd feared.
I ought to redo this. But I'm so lazy busy. Now, if only some other person happened to be interested too, so that there were two of us. . . .
Hoary (
talk)
12:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your article about Laura Pannack. I reviewed the article and placed a couple of tags where citations are needed. It looks good, keep up the great work!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 19:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I noticed your recent minor change on this article and wonder if you can help.
Talk:Slashdot#WP:BOLD_readability_changes_to_lead
Jump straight to last entry. WykiP ( talk) 01:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. It seems like you have totally depreciated the article about Hed Kandi record label. It definitely did not break wiki rules by no manner of means. It was just the whole discography of HK according to series and releases. It is like as if you deleted all releases of some musicians in one or more years and instead of that simply wrote that for example 5 albums were released in year xy and 5 in year yx, but without mentioning of what exactly was it. I do not consider the article as an indiscriminate excessive list. Sorry but I can not accept that. Can you please undo your changes. I have no time and moood to revert it :( Thanks in advance.
Good work, thank you.
I'd previously noticed that a lot of the "sourced information" either was sourced to the website run by/for the biographee or simply wasn't in the sources that were adduced. Removing the factoids and deceptions took a fair amount of time. I also wiped out some trivia, but tired before the job was complete.
I noticed something odd about the article. Virtually all, or perhaps all, of the credits are to Klinko and Indrani, and suggest that Indrani is number two. Yet Klinko doesn't have an article, Indrani had a hagiography, and a lot of the exaggerations and misreadings in the article emphasized Indrani at the expense of Klinko. Notably, it suggested that the pair of them started photography from zero together, citing a source that made it clear that Klinko had already started.
The article has been most added to by a contributor of more or less promotional material to a cluster of related articles. I haven't looked much at them, but have removed obvious excrescences ("legendary", etc) from one or two.
What puzzles me is whether Indrani is actually a photographer to any significant degree. I get the impression that she's Klinko's stylist (arranging the sitters and putting them at ease) and perhaps also assistant cameraman. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Argh, preventing this article from becoming still worse seems to be the equivalent of one editor's full-time job. A variety of problems obviously remain -- but my bed looks too inviting, so I'm clocking off for now. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't think you would mind, so I added a colon to prevent your user page from being categorized into i:Category:Cleanup templates. Senator2029 ➔ “Talk” 00:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I found this edit from March of 2013. I reverted it now because it removed an important detail that must be included in every article about a company (the information about Dropbox Inc. is included in Dropbox (service) so it is about the company as much as it is about the service. On top of that, San Francisco newspapers found it worthy to report on the headquarters of Dropbox. Ed Lee, Mayor of San Francisco, said after Dropbox moved: "While the state and the nation are focused on jobs and the economy, San Francisco’s economy rumbles forward – adding new jobs thanks to the growth of firms like Dropbox. Dropbox’s move is a significant expansion which continues the steady drumbeat of innovative, talent-driven companies which start, stay and grow right here in San Francisco." ( from this article, this detail was present but another user had removed it) WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain making edits as you did on Anna Calvi. Just because you aren't interested in something doesn't mean it isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Heat-seeker charts and charts like it from countries around the world are used extensively on Wikipedia. Goodbye (Kristinia DeBarge song) is just one example of many examples, except in that case it is the Australian Hit-seeker chart. Please feel free to take the US Heat-seeker info off of Anna's discography though when she has charted on the official main US Billboard 200 albums chart. Thank you for using Wikipedia! Jacobjimmy2000 ( talk) 22:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. In this diff you're deleting a link from the Wikipedia page about Darktable to the Github page about Darktable, saying that it's "not appropriate for Wikipedia to include a link to it". I disagree; I think it is extremely appropriate, indeed essential. I am restoring the link you deleted (in the "External Links" section), and annotating the link to the old version of the project's source code. If you still think linking to the project that the page is about is not appropriate, please explain your reasoning on the article's talk page when reverting my change. Kragen Javier Sitaker ( talk) 23:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to explain my edit. I think I meant to say British curator in the persondata section, but since Mr. Lewis works with photographs I was thinking photographer. The source would be the article itself. It calls him a curator. I would also like to know why my addition of the authority control template was reverted. It is a good faith edit and part of a project to add authority data to Wikipedia articles. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Authority_control
Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.--FeanorStar7 14:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this and feel free to disagree (or even agree). -- Hoary ( talk) 13:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Though polite and well-intended, this edit sets off warning lights. I'm not going to bother to look at the edit history it refers to, but if I understand it correctly, it says something uncomfortably close to "You and I have edit-warred. But, in contrast to me, the change you want effected to the article is wrong. And therefore you can be had up for edit warring. So cut it out and let me win the war!"
Ah, no. Other than in very particular circumstances (e.g. battling some dimwit who wants to add " Eric is a fag!"), edit warring is edit warring, whether you're on the wrong or (in your considered opinion) the right side.
Yes of course there are times when it's blazingly obvious (to me, anyway) that I want to improve an article and my adversary, though not an out-and-out vandal, wants to degrade it. When this happens, I request an additional pair of eyes. And not those of somebody I know (which might look like canvassing) but instead on some relevant Wikipedia talk page. For starters (before a problem gets serious), here's the talk page of WikiProject History of photography, which is moribund but needn't remain so. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm the author of Henrik Purienne Thanks for updating! You seem to be experienced in the field of the arts and photography? Would be a great help if you have any suggestions to prevent deletion of this article. Thanks! Silverhaze — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverhaze01 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
An excellent article on Winship. Well done! (Sez the creatoran author of the article on her husband.)
Meanwile, irrelevantly to that . . . an edit summary: Added autobiography tag. Article created by user [A], which resembles [B] herself, and it still resembles that first draft. Yes, [A] does indeed resemble [B], and that draft does resemble the one written by [A]. However, Template:Autobiography/doc says: This message should only be used when autobiographical content has been confirmed. It should never be used when doing so would reveal the identity of a pseudonymous Wikipedia user. Violating the privacy of users by revealing their real names or other personal information can result in an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia. Remember that although a fan of [B] should not give themself a name suggesting that they are [B], they might nevertheless do so.
Template:Autobiography/doc doesn't say more, but for a closely related template, Template:COI/doc says: Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other {{pov}} tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame.) -- Hoary ( talk) 13:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC) .... mistake fixed 06:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm starting to work on something. But I have virtually no independent sources. If you can dig up any, do let me know. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for overworking Frank Rocholl. I´ve added a publications listing and a few links that verifies the guys expertise in typography, logo design and editorial design. Hopefully it proofs his relevance besides Mirage Magazine. These titles are all standard literature for graphic designers, especially the Los Logos Series.
- Silverhaze ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverhaze01 ( talk • contribs) 00:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
On this: Turner is dead, unfortunately.
Do you have any ideas of where to look for a second source? -- Hoary ( talk) 14:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent, substantive additions to Peter Turner (writer and photographer), but I remain puzzled. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. The only assertions that don't purport to have sources are (i) "Its publications included the first edition of Chris Steele-Perkins' The Teds" and (ii) the content of the section "Books by Turner". The literate reader (and it's hard to imagine anybody else being interested in Turner) will know that the content of both (i) and (ii), if true, can be verified via Worldcat. Of course, some of it is imaginably not true, and can be challenged. Do you think that I should provide sources (e.g. links to Worldcat records) for each of these? (This isn't something I've bothered to do previously, or that others much do.) As for what does purport to be sourced, is some of it in reality unsourced? If so, this would normally call for Template:Failed verification. Or is the problem that almost everything's from a single source? If so (and if this were a problem), this would normally call for Template:One source". The doc for the latter template tells us: "A single source is not automatically a problem. Good judgment and common sense should be used." The doc for Template:Refimprove goes further: "If an article has exactly one source and that single source is likely to result in bias or other problems in the article (e.g., it cites one fringe-y book instead of a good textbook), then use {{ One source}}" (original emphasis). -- Hoary ( talk) 06:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It's hardly surprising that when you wrote this you'd no idea that " Afrapix" already existed (kind of). (It was only later moved into article space.) But the article needs, and the subject merits, a lot more work. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I've always avoided making links such as Unpopular Culture: Grayson Perry Selects from the [[Arts Council Collection]], because it looks odd to me and (to follow this example) jabbing at the words "Arts Council Collection" on the book's title page does not take one to the Arts Council.
Also, I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the " Manual of style" we're told not to do this, but am too lazy to look.
I'll concede that an obvious workaround --
-- is cumbersome. Well, perhaps we can simply link a bit less.
You've been doing a lot of good work recently. Thank you! Returning to your early edits for a moment, did you ever get a copy of Peter Dench's England Uncensored? I did, before the collapse of Emphas.is; if you didn't, the man has copies for sale.
Now, somebody with more time and energy than me could do a lot worse than start an article on this bloke. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I too have a lists-versus-descriptions problem. I start with the lists because publication details of the books don't need sourcing and the exhibitions can be sourced fairly easily and thereupon add up to a monstrous pile of references that ought to impress any numbskull who might otherwise claim that the photographer is not noteworthy. But just getting this far can easily exhaust my patience. Plus the descriptions part is a lot harder to do -- I have to be wide awake, and scrupulously avoid "original synthesis" and miscellaneous other pitfalls.
Ken Grant has two books coming out pretty soon, and both look interesting. And the one that's already published is certainly worth the money. As it has escaped inclusion in Parr/Badger 3, its price isn't likely to shoot up, so no rush. -- Hoary ( talk) 22:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
-- that I can't pretend is about Parr.
O'Hagan writes that Artists do what they do and the rest of us try to keep up or make sense of what they do. But most of the rest of us don't. Most of us haven't the slightest interest. Which in itself is hardly surprising, as most of us have at no time had the slightest interest in the work of Chris Killip, who O'Hagan presents as the antithesis of today's "artists". (Me personally? The degree of my uninterest.) Clearly a critic of what's still called photography should pay some attention to the phenomenon of books and exhibitions consisting of stuff obtained from Google street view, if only because (justifiably or otherwise) there's so much excitement over it; but I don't think that a critic should feel obliged to pay attention to everything touted by this or that gallery, curator or other critic as an "interrogation of the medium of photography", not least because these "interrogations" are often so limp (and the "conceptual" is based on such banal concepts). Still, it can be interesting to read about these "interrogations", even if the results are so often so uninteresting.
But back to Miserachs' work (less interesting to read about than many "interrogations", more interesting to look at): I haven't see this particular PHotoBolsillo book, but the others in the series that I have seen are good in their very compact way, like the Fototorst series. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation. I'd been going to do just that earlier (and with an entirely innocent purpose), but you didn't/don't have an email link. Meanwhile, I'm here. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't feel that way to me. It might do, if it were phrased differently; and perhaps even the phrasing that was used and deleted wasn't the best. But it seemed pretty much OK to me.
The article on Narelle Autio doesn't mention her husband till its third paragraph; but when you get to the (incomplete?) list of her exhibitions and note that every one of them was done with him, the earlier omission seems a bit odd. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! What do you mean by " That is incorrect syntax for the External Links section"? I thought machine readable URLs are preferred over (almost) bare URLs. That is, one can extract metadata more easily when URLs are embedded in {{cite}} templates. -- 2001:470:67:E9:2C2:C6FF:FE3A:C302 ( talk) 17:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
these books? (I only have one, and have easy access to only three more.) I've a hunch that direct examination of the books might reveal a few more odds and sods, eg about corporate largesse. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
number 76,235 (or thereabouts). -- Hoary ( talk) 09:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, after I'd made this edit to the article on Hornstra I looked more closely at its history and realized that my edit summary was inaccurate and unjustifiably dismissive of edits by others, particularly you. Thank you for all the link-updating, etc.
That said, there's a considerable amount of work to be done there. I plan to resume soon, but the entire job will take time. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lopifalko, thanks for your edits on Vivian Maier. I reverted one edit you made, deleting material about her working practice as nanny and street photographer. I have initiated discussion of this mater on Maier Talk page. Best, Mick gold ( talk) 17:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Installment no. 39838 (or so): this. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello. As you are the source of the ISBN of "Willy Ronis: Photographs, 1926-1995" in this edit you may well have an interest in whether it should be "fixed". In particular, if you still have access to this work it would help if you could confirm that the invalid number is as-printed and whether the work contains an alternate valid ISBN anywhere. In these cases I often find that the ISBN is printed incorrectly in the front matter but is correct in the barcode and/or on the cover. TuxLibNit ( talk) 22:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I would be thankful if you explain why you deleted this section, Lopifalko:
1. from external links, links on official pages of award from social media? according to your articles, they almost all include this information. so what's wrong in that information here? (ex: Photography and the Archive Research Centre, Paul Reas)
so, want to back it
agreed, then waiting for your comments about others items.-- Leshavskaya ( talk) 19:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
2. "Conditions" - ' Far too detailed for Wikipedia' - This is information directly related to award. it is fixed. also, this is a distinction, about who can take a part. and also it occupied 4 lines... also, in this Examples such information contains Pulitzer Prize, Nobel Prize. so, want to back it
3. "International collaboration / exhibitions / lectures" - ' Meaningless detail' - This detail talk about international cooperation. This detail talk about scale of international award. Also, your article Photography and the Archive Research Centre including such 'Meaningless detail' so, want to back it.
4. "Reason of creation" "Main award goals" - 'Reason of creation: Hyperbole' - here example, where 'such unimportant info' and 'Hyperbole' names as 'history' Pulitzer Prize, Nobel Prize. If you think 'history' would be sounds better, it could be renamed on 'history'. so, want to back it and waiting for your answer about to combine it and rename 'history'.
I’ll try to make text better as soon as I can (on the weekends) -- Leshavskaya ( talk) 18:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
'Main award goals:
Removed unimportant info'
5. About ‘This article needs additional citations for verification’ - I would be appreciate if you said what exactly ref you need? What information they should contain? And I will gladly to find them.
Do you agree? -- Leshavskaya ( talk) 18:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Waiting for your answer. --
Leshavskaya (
talk)
10:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok. thanks, will be waiting -- Leshavskaya ( talk) 16:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed on your User page that you think the article "
Photoworks" could be deleted. This is to let you know that I have moved (renamed) that article to
PhotoWorks (ray tracing software). So now "Photoworks" is a redirect to "PhotoWorks (ray tracing software)". I'm considering two things that could be done with the redirect page, and was wondering if you had an opinion: (1) Turn it into a disambiguation page that would list "Photoworks (agency)" and "PhotoWorks (ray tracing software)"; (2) Request that the "Photoworks" redirect page be deleted. Then we could move (rename) "Photoworks (agency)" to be simply "Photoworks". What do you think?
I suspect that most people who type "photoworks" are looking for the agency. But I could be wrong. PhotoWorks is an old software module and apparently it isn't being supplied with the main program anymore. But there may still be some users out there. So if the agency article was titled simply "Photoworks", then we probably have to add a hatnote, like the one you added to the old "Photoworks". (BTW, I noticed that the
Wonga link on your User page goes to a disamb page. You might want to change that to
Wonga.com) Thanks. --
Margin1522 (
talk)
13:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Please stop putting back my date of birth. I am a filmmaker and photographer and would really prefer to have my birthday not mentioned. Thanks. Roy Stuart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.170.180.53 ( talk) 09:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I have expanded the Musée Réattu article and added references. Would you agree to remove the GNG tag? Thank you. Olivier ( talk) 16:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rencontres d'Arles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anders Petersen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! It looks much better after your conscientious edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Interesting ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Zhang Xiao: my creation, today. I congratulate myself.
Whew, that took ages. (And the result is thoroughly uninteresting.) I think it's partly because I'm out of practice: the last time I'd created an article was back in May.
Right, now I'm off to eat. Do please feel free to improve "my" new article: not necessarily today, of course, but you'd be welcome today too. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
On 18 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article PC Music, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that record label PC Music has never produced a physical release? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/PC Music. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lopifalko. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal talk 02:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to make them (somebody else will, eventually); but on the off-chance that you'd like to do so, here's how it's done. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Lopifalko, in the field of science David Solomons is quite a influential accountant scholar, see here, which makes the single term "David Solomons" quite ambiguous. One solution in such a case is make a link to the other page, which I made here. Since you didn't agree, I followed WP:D and created a disambiguation page. -- Mdd ( talk) 10:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
My mistake. I thought the date was 1830. GoodDay ( talk) 20:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Your summary: nope! Wikipedia is designed to be scraped and recycled elsewhere. What's Wikipedia to you and me can be legitimately splattered with commercials and recycled as buyourerectiledysfunctionsnakeoilpedia.biz, as long as this outfit retains the copyleft notices. I'm sure there's a guideline somewhere (in MoS?) that explains the odd fact that Wikipedia articles treat Wikipedia as just as alien as, say, Britannica, but right now I'm too tired to look for it, sorry. (Perhaps you can guess why....) -- Hoary ( talk) 13:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Several iconic Photographs by PJG have been added to Wiki Commons for the first time ever. More will follow soon. But for now, why not add these images to the PJG article? Thanks!
File:Boy destroying piano.jpg|Boy destroying piano
File:VNC Female.jpg|VNC Female
Jason.nlw ( talk) 19:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello again. Thanks so much for adding the Philip Jones Griffiths pictures to Wikipedia! I thought you might like to know that I have just uploaded 100 very early Welsh photographs. Most are taken by the Dillwyn Llywelyn family. Search 'Category:Early Swansea Photography' on Commons. Also online now are some 450 Geoff Charles images from 1940-1960ish. Search 'Category:Photographs by Geoff Charles'. Thanks again. Jason.nlw ( talk) 16:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the excellent work on the Campany article. I'm still very busy with "RL"; but you may hate to know that I've found the time to splatter this lovely article of yours with a few SGML comments. Just search for "<!‑‑", of course. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Lopifalko,
The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you were one of the very first testers of VisualEditor, back in 2012 or early 2013. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work better for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.
You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.
More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.
Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |