User talk:Lopifalko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Jonathan Caouette‎[edit]

Great work on the article! Doniago (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for saying so, Doniago. Lopifalko (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Exposing to the right[edit]

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)

I thought I was being civil; I explained myself as thoroughly as possible with each revert, so that they would seem civil; apologies if I still came across as uncivil. Just because I undid your removal of my editing doesn't mean I'm not civil, I'm just disagreeing with your actions. I agree with what you said on your second revert of the BBC Radio 4 article. Lopifalko (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I was refering to your edit summary. Accusing someone of astroturfing does not presume good faith. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, good point, forgot about that little indiscretion. It seemed to me you were removing mention of the article from Wikipedia so that it was harder to find because it criticised the company. Anger and paranoia on my part, sorry about that.
No problem. Now that there is an article that's fine. People had been regularly adding links to the website, which wasn't! Harry the Dog WOOF 13:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark Power[edit]

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)

Tell me about it! The poor coverage of photographers is a total shame, they deserve better, so I'm concentrating on them more than other areas here at the moment. I bounced off your Talk page to do a little editing of David Bailey (photographer) and Don McCullin. Thanks for the offer of help, I appreciate that. I'm in the middle of a big rewrite of Garry Winogrand, and have done a lot of work on Joel Meyerowitz recently. Lopifalko (talk) 19:44, 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)

Yeah that looks great, you made loads of worthwhile improvements. I've learned an amendment I need to make to where I put the date in book publication details, thanks. Lopifalko (talk) 22:00, 22 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)

Oops, thanks Hoary for looking over my shoulder and feeding back to me :) Lopifalko (talk) 09:02, 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)

It's from that blog post that I picked up on the MP blog. It's funny, now that you've made yourself known, I can see you in logs going back over the past year or so working on many of the same photographer articles I've been working on, so it's useful that we've become a little acquainted. Lopifalko (talk) 09:23, 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)

Checkout my Peter Dench article, if you would.


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)

Yeah tedious stuff, but thanks Hoary for letting me know as I didn't realise it. I've been putting it into practice since you brought it up here though. Lopifalko (talk) 14:43, 28 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 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)

Thanks. Lopifalko (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Peter Dench for deletion[edit]

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. ClaretAsh 06:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

List of women photographers[edit]

if a gender separated list is really required, why is it not instead a category?

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)

Thanks for the heads-up on List of photographers Hoary, in the last day I've been using Category: British_photographers, English_photographers, British_photojournalists and English_photojournalists and found loads that probably aren't notable enough for inclusion and am planning to get to work on them. Lopifalko (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I went to "English photographers" and arbitrarily chose the start of "L". Penny Lancaster: article shows zero notability as a photographer. Simon Larbalestier: looks very thin but there could be something. Martin Laroche: fine. Neil Lawson Baker: a photographer merely on the strength of this single, unsourced sentence: Since 2007, Neil [sic] has also been exploring the world of high resolution photography as a fine-art form producing a distinct style of work notably of Venice, Buenos Aires and London. Jeez. Alice Dixon Le Plongeon: totally unsourced. If sourced, OK; but possibly a complete hoax. Jim Lee (photographer): Ah, I've already encountered this one. ¶ Tip: WP will never be free of dodgy articles; if you attempt to rid it of them (whether by improving them or having them removed) you will overwork yourself to the point of insanity. So better to concentrate your finite energies on improving those that clearly merit improvement and having deleting those that clearly merit deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

External links + Endorsements[edit]

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 Lpmfx. Regarding External Links, please read WP:ELOFFICIAL - "Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says.". Also, Facebook is clearly linked to from the front page of the f(x) official web site.
Regarding Endorsements, when a celebrity endorses a corporate product, it is not a notable fact as far as Wikipedia is concerned. A notable fact would be like an album release, or a concert tour. The fact they are paid by a corporation to have their name associated with a product is not notable. Have you got sources that indicate how these endorsements are notable? Lopifalko (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
i'm talking about Exo's 2 facebook page and the 2 weibo address, the group have 2 subgroups and each group have their own facebook(english) and weibo(chinese). since the Girls' Generation can have their official facebook page listed in their wiki page, why can't other do the same?
Thanks for pointing out that Girls' Generation had a link to their Facebook in their External Links, I've removed that too Lopifalko (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
i'll re-wording the endorsements to Commercial Filming.--Lpmfx (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Changing the name on the tin doesn't change what's inside. Lopifalko (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, so, are you saying they're 'Commercials / Advertisements' (as in, say, a 30 second long moving image), rather than product endorsements (which I took to mean merely putting her face or name to a product)? Lopifalko (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
They are part of her work, as alot of artists/entertainers have similar section why can't she?--Lpmfx (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
What matters is whether or not it's notable. Just because other Wikipedia articles have some info which isn't notable, is no reason to justify non-notable info for other articles. Lopifalko (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
----Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Freja Beha Erichsen, that's an interesting read that backs up what I said. I do generally try to make sure social networking links have prominent placement on the official site before removing them, but sometimes can be slap dash about it, so after reading that I'll now make doubly sure of it. Lopifalko (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Justin Bieber[edit]

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 ( (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC))

Thank you Multa, but no thanks. Have you looked at the article for him already, Justin Bieber?


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 and Kickstarter.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 :) Twitter. I've bought books I haven't gotten round to opening yet, it seems tragic. The trouble with a lot of photo books is that if you don't buy them when they come out, theirs is a limited run and so they only go up in price. And there are so many of them that are desirable. Tomorrow I get my copy of Bruce Davidson's Subway.

Essential reading. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read that before, but it's worth reading again, it's very funny. When I say I've not opened some of mine... I've bought them because I've wanted to read them, and know I'll not be able to afford them soon, and the only reason I've not opened them yet is because I've bought so many recently, just to be clear here Hoary that I'm not someone that takes Blake Andrews seriously :)

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)

Grimes Influences[edit]

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)

you deleted my photo?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 17:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Freidster (F Reid ster, as I read it), sounds a lot like Fraser Reid. So that, and the fact the only other page you'd really worked on was Fraser Reid itself, made me think you're him, thus my 'self promotion' comment. I'm sorry if that isn't the case, but it very much looks like it so far. Fraser Reid isn't well known, if you ask Google about 'fraser reid street photographer' the only results in the first page are the Wikipedia article, and his own Facebook pages. By Wikipedia standards, or by anyone's standards, that's not well known. Anyway, this is all academic as, in my opinion, the street photography page doesn't need an example that is a study of a single person in the frame. And whilst we're chatting, the Fraser Reid article itself will have to go as he doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. You've not been very civic minded over on that article, deleting people's tags they've put on it indicating a lack of notability, instead of just deleting them you should at least put a reason, and preferably take it to the Talk page to discuss. If you want some help with expected behaviour on editing biographies of people on Wikipedia biographies then I'd be happy to help. Lopifalko (talk) 21:21, 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 (talkcontribs) 21:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Without references to some kind of media talking about them, then by Wikipedia's standards they are not notable, that's the way Wikipedia works. The speedy deletion was about the fact the article didn't show that he is known, merely stated that he was, it needed to show proof. I'd say I knew a thing or two about street photography, you'll notice I created articles for photographers Maciej Dakowicz, David Solomons and Peter Dench, as well as Simon Roberts and Kevin Meredith / lomokev. Lopifalko (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

what the hell is your problem[edit]

What are you deleting my articles??? whats your problem here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freidster (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 22:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What's _my_ problem? You are the one who appears to have created a page about yourself; and has blithely removed tags people have put on the page without any comment as to why. It looks like a belligerent attitude. Those are abuses of Wikipedia. And to mark one of my pages for speedy deletion out of pure malice, is very abusive. The Kevin Meredith article shows plenty of evidence of notability by various media talking about him, plus books he has had published. You're unlikely to be a notable enough photographer without having had someone else publish a book about you. You think I have a problem? I am simply going by the Wikipedia guidelines here, it is you that is acting inappropriately for Wikipedia. If marked your page for speedy deletion, but others were already claiming issues with your article, and someone else agreed enough that they followed up the speedy deletion tag with the actual deletion. Lopifalko (talk) 13:27, 26 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)

Booz Allen Hamilton[edit]

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)

Thanks. Sounds interesting, what have you seen in the way of historic revisioning? Lopifalko (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Foreign language ELs[edit]

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)

Hi. I've just re-read WP:NONENGEL and agree that you're right, given the circumstances they should be included. Lopifalko (talk) 19:32, 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)

Thanks Hoary for having my back there, yet again! I took a chance and added the death without being able to find a reference (I saw it mentioned on Twitter). Naughty, I know, but the Tweet was from someone reputable. And even more naughty I guessed that the date of his death was the date it was reported, figuring if I was wrong then at least the death was recorded here and someone would fix the date if need be. Interesting that the Japanese way is to leave it so long to announce, especially when people are widely known of. Lopifalko (talk) 13:11, 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)

 :) Ooh yeah, that's atrocious, I'll have a look into it too... Lopifalko (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I put the matter aside for a few days and instead (but very relevantly) created an article on John Bulmer (whose book The North I recommend). -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
For later use: Ernst Haas. Lopifalko (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Unghh. There seems to be a rule: Any person of unusual significance in the history of color photography has a seriously undersourced article (here), an utterly wretched article, no article, or (most amusingly) an article that doesn't even mention that he took photos (specifically, this bloke). Well, I've started to draft something about color photography, but so far only on my computer. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
. . . or an article that implies that myths are true. Well, doing the groundwork for an account of the adoption of color can be enjoyable (example). -- Hoary (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Nice work on the Eggleston article, I see how that point about the true origins of the use of colour is important to be making here at WP, I've now done similar in the Parr article to go with the quote I added from Badger (which now smacks of hyperbole). I don't know what happened in January but somehow I missed that article on Bulmer in my BJP; I'm buying The North, thanks for the tip Hoary. Lopifalko (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Laura Pannack[edit]

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)

Hi and thank you, for reviewing it, and for the compliment, it's kind of you to say so. --Lopifalko (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Break 'silence' deadlock on Slashdot?[edit]

I noticed your recent minor change on this article and wonder if you can help.


Jump straight to last entry. WykiP (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to get into that tangle. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hed Kandi[edit]

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.

Hed_Kandi#Compilations/Singles was a complete list, where each individual item was very similar, hardly needing to be spelled out separately. For example the 'Back To Love' subsection listed each 'Back To Love' compilation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. All I did was to remove the unnecessary repetition in very similar album titles, leaving behind a list containing the names of each album series. I created a _synopsis_ of the compilations and single albums section. That seems precisely what "indiscriminate excessive list" is all about to me, and the appropriate response to take to one. The pertinent information remains. Wikipedia shouldn't be a complete discography. What value do you see in keeping the repetitious detail? -Lopifalko (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I see your point, but still no joy. To me the article is a sort of credible source about one record label and all its releases/projects. The are lots of bootleg projects and this article can help to verify whether some release is an official project or not. Yes there special series, but each album is a separate element of production, no matter how they are officialy called and that they differ only in the year of realising. If someone would like to know how many or what all the albums the label has created, or would like to have a collection, he/she can verify what actually to look for. There are compilations beeing released year after year but not every are. I think you made hundreds of fans disappointed. I think Wiki is full of discographies. Maybe there is a way in creating a separate article. 11:48, 3 July 2013 (CET)
As far as I understand, Wikipedia policy is that it doesn't seek to be this kind of resource, instead leaving it to Hed Kandi to provide this information on their site. Note that the article already has this tag from September 2009: "This article contains embedded lists that may be poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate". Other articles for record labels don't include full discographies, what I think you're after is to create an article such as 'Hed Kandi discography', such as exists for other labels and musicians. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I or somebody else would maybe love to, but you deleted relatively underlying detailed data. I see your point and arguments but it is not that easy to shift off the whole discography to a new article. I for example was used to use this wiki article as a primary source in a safe place and now its gone. I am not in vain to write or correct it again right know :/ Can you somehow pass it to me or give it back to the article for a short time? 19:30, 3 July 2013 (CET)
Wikpedia keeps a copy of every revision of a page throughout its lifetime, so to see to a previous revision, just go to the article - select View History - and select the time and date for the revision you'd like to see. For example Hed Kandi before I came along: You could create a discography article by simply copying and pasting the Wikitext from the 'Compilations/Singles' section of that older article into a new article. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I see. I am kinda wiki beginner. Thanks for your helpfulness. Just to be sure I copied the content from the older revision for me:)) Ill create the discogr. article later. Regards Lopifalko. 10:05, 4 July 2013 (CET)
Thanks, and good luck. If you want any kind of assistance with Wikipedia in future you're welcome to ask me. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


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)

Jeebus. You're trying your best, but I'd have been tempted just to revert the whole lot. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I never got around to getting back to you about the above above, I still intend to take you up on it. As for this recent mess, yes, I'd have much preferred to revert the whole lot in one go, but didn't know how, I tried to undo them in reverse order but some claimed they couldn't be undone, is there a feature I missed? Lopifalko (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Aha! Yes indeed there's a way. (1) Open the history page. (2) Click on the version that you think is the best. (Unsurprisingly, you'll be told This is an old revision of this page, as edited by [blah blah]. It may differ significantly from the current revision.) (3) Though the regular "Edit" links may not be visible, there will be a link somewhere saying "Edit this page" or similar. Click on it. (Unsurprisingly, you'll get the previous warning, and also another saying You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed.) (4) Simply save (with an informative edit summary). Optionally you can edit before saving, but for ease of understanding by other editors I think it's better to save without editing; instead, proceed to edit and save. ¶ Of course, reverting a pile of edits by one or more other editors is a sure-fire way to piss them off mightily. If it's not a case of blatant vandalism (and this is not), you have to explain yourself very persuasively on the talk page. Don't cite screwy English, let alone spelling mistakes: as we all know, usually it's easy to fix either. On the other hand, if a scrupulous editor finds three assertions that are "sourced" (ha ha) to sources that turn out not to provide evidence for those assertions, then I think they should insist that every new "source" should be verified, but can refuse to do this (life is too short for clearing up after the seriously incompetent) and should just delete. Better read this, though. Oh, and also better to avoid slinging around accusations of serious incompetence and so forth, no matter how justified they may seem. -- Hoary (talk) 07:10, 1 October 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 agree, but a little from each of us now and again is keeping Karimkennedy from having their way with it. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Minor correction to your user page[edit]

Yes, if editing gets a bit too much, turn off the computer for a short while and relax with a good photobook. Perhaps something from Dewi Lewis, perhaps something by this bloke. -- Hoary (talk) 14:31, 7 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)

That's great, thank you for stopping by and being so kind, and teaching me something. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Company articles and company headquarters[edit]

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)

December 2013[edit]

Information icon 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)

Just because it is allowed on Wikipedia, does not mean it should be. I believe that the most worthwhile point of the albums list is just to communicate the names of the albums, when they were released, and their record label. When sundry chart positions are added it creates a plethora of information that is distracting. More is not necessarily more. Less can be more. The main goal of Wikipedia articles that give an overview of the artist should be on READABILITY. The fine grained information like statistical details should be saved for the individual article for that album, as is already the case with one of these 2 albums. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to the first edit you made, not the second one for starters. I may also add though that a discography does list chart info on Wikipedia. If their is a sole discography page for that artist then it is just listed there and not on the artist page, however when there isn't one and it's just all on the artist page then the chart info is normally included on there. The goal of Wikipedia should be readability but also getting people the information their looking for, and discography's normally list album titles, chart peaks, record label, and year released unless like I said there's separate page for discography, there isn't in Anna's case. Just food for thought. Jacobjimmy2000 (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Linking to project home is "not appropriate"?[edit]

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)

It looks like someone beat me to it. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
My reasoning is that Wikipedia's External Links section should usually have just one link to an official page of the subject of the article, which is why I referred to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Darktable's own site includes a link to its repository, so Wikipedia doesn't need to as well. I'm not aware enough to know why they link to a different repository, so I expect that is why you want this one included, but in my opinion they should fix their own site instead. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Dewi Lewis[edit]

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:

Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.--FeanorStar7 14:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. 'Photographer' doesn't seem, to me, to apply. I would call him a book publisher (and not just of photobooks I believe, but I can't find mention of that right now). I don't know of the syntax that persondata uses to know what we can use there, do you? If I get time I will look into it. Your authority control template was only reverted as a by-product of me reverting your persondata, it was nothing to do with the Authority control template itself, I've added it back now. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
ok, thank you. I think it's a judgement call by the editor regarding Persondata. The Persondata page ( gives some background, but doesn't expressly say you have to give a definite source. I think in this case, British publisher and curator may work.--FeanorStar7 15:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added 'British book publisher' as I think that's predominantly what he does, 'curator' seems less prominent but if you think it requires it then please go ahead and add that too. -Lopifalko (talk)
Dewi Lewis (the company) has certainly published fiction. If my understanding of the company is anywhere near right, this means that Dewi Lewis (the man) has published fiction. -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln Center[edit]

Hi. Please see this and feel free to disagree (or even agree). -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, cool it a little[edit]

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)

Thanks Hoary, for calling me out on that. You'll get me fat, eating all this humble pie. I went and sat in a corner and read my Mermelstein, Sidewalk, it was pleasing to see the astutely spotted and edited examples of humans being humans, New Yorkers being New Yorkers. -Lopifalko (talk)
You have excellent taste, Sir. Another strong recommendation: Jens Olof Lasthein. (I notice that currently has an "as-new" copy of his Moments in between for $50, not bad at all.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Well well. (And in other news: Moments in between -- which I'd believed/assumed was out of print -- is in print, and Lasthein has a new book out from Journal too.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Henrik Purienne[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 20:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. You need to find things like (1) sources that Wikipedia considers reliable talking about why he is noteworthy in his field; (2) awards he has received (with reliable references to prove it); and (3) exhibitions he has had (with reliable references to prove it). -Lopifalko (talk)


An excellent article on Winship. Well done! (Sez the creatoran author of the article on her husband.)

Thank you Hoary, I appreciate that, it's an honour coming from you. I was glad to see I thought it funny that you had been the one to create Georgiou's, but you've put yourself straight on that. -Lopifalko (talk)
And thanks for your sweep of the article, I was glad to see the minor amendments you picked out were all technical points I didn't already know of. -Lopifalko (talk)

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)

Thanks for the warning / pointing this out. I had read Template:Autobiography/doc and Template:COI/doc but my reading of it was that it didn't go as far as when a user had given themselves the same name as the subject of the article, that "pseudonymous Wikipedia user" did not apply when they had used such a name, and that I was not creating a link between the Wikipedia user and a real person by adding new facts. But I take your point that I should just steer clear of this. Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk)
Yes, well, Wikipedia does sometimes conflict with what's obvious or common sense or both. Certainly Van Morrison (let's say) is the name used by somebody famous, and therefore any user calling himself Van Morrison (or VnMrrson or similar) ought actually (and, probably via OTRS, verifiably) to be Van Morrison (or anyway a Van Morrison); for Joe Bloggs to call himself Van Morrison is a no-no. However, we can't assume that people have read and digested all the guidelines, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

S O'H[edit]

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)

I'm pleased you spotted that and are working on an article.
The Guardian says "He was named interviewer of the year in the British press awards in 2003 for his profiles of footballer Roy Keane and musician Brian Wilson" but it appears they got it wrong. The Press Awards say "2002 British Press Awards (Date of the Awards: March 18, 2003) ... Interviewer of the Year - Sean O’Hagan (Observer)". As happens with awards, the '2002 Awards' ceremony was held in 2003. Press Gazette, presumably a reliable source, has it listed for 2003. It's interesting to see he worked for the NME. -Lopifalko (talk)
Good sleuthing, thank you. I'll use that. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Prix Pictet - Nominators - "The nominators for the Prix Pictet are a group of leading experts in the visual arts from around the world including directors of major museums and galleries as well as journalists and critics. They lead the global search for images of high artistic quality and narrative power and fit the theme of a particular cycle. ... Sean O’Hagan Staff Writer, The Observer, United Kingdom" - "He is currently wring a memoir for Bloomsbury." -Lopifalko (talk)
Yes, and we can even find the name of the woman who's his agent for this. (I didn't make a note of the URL or her name, as this matter isn't "encyclopedic".) Past (quasi-) books include (i) a book (or anyway the text within the book) of photos of Freddie Mercury (actually a recycled CD booklet, it would seem), and (ii) Down Cyprus Avenue. But was the latter actually published? There are mentions on the web of a publishing delay, I can't find any copies (new or old) for sale, and the elusiveness of copies is surprising given how recently the book was published (if it was published at all) and the popularity of its subject (Van Morrison). ¶ I'm going to look up O'Hagan in Contemporary Authors within the next few days. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Interviewed as part of Desert Island Pics, Brighton Photo Biennial, 2012. Desert Island Pics is a series of interviews that has also featured Martin Parr, Mishka Henner and Peter Fraser. -Lopifalko (talk)
'A Little History: Photographs of Nick Cave & Cohorts, 1981-2013', Bleddyn Butcher Allen & Unwin (World), "introduction from Sean O’Hagan" -Lopifalko (talk)
Respectively: (i) Yes, but I can't find a write-up in a reliable source. And without knowing the content, one's reduced to "S O'H was interviewed about his 'desert island pics'", which in turn would say "Desperately scraping the barrel, for want of anything worth saying." (ii) Yes, I know of various contributions to books, but again this looks like barrel-scraping. ¶ Worldcat doesn't have an entry (or any that I see) for Down Cyprus Avenue, which I suspect was never published. -- Hoary (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Obviously we also have sole recipient of the 2011 Royal Photographic Society#J Dudley Johnston Award "for major achievement in the field of photographic criticism" but I can't find a reliable third-party source. -[[User:Lopifalko|Lopifalko[[ (talk)
Third-party source not needed. If the RPS says so, that's good enough. (And thank you for this reminder.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Frank Rocholl[edit]

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.

Thanks for your updates again. I´ve kicked the advertising tonality and a few unsourced things out. Hope its better like this. The smart car sources are hard to find (online) because its all pre1998. The only thing i´ve found is the smart Corporate Design Manual from the guys website:

-Silverhaze (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverhaze01 (talkcontribs) 00:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Hoary has given you good advice on his talk page, I have nothing better to suggest than to follow that.
Regarding your upload of You state the source as "computer screenshot" but what was your computer looking at it when you shot it? Where does it come from? -Lopifalko (talk)

Living and dead[edit]

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)

I've been using BLP templates indiscriminately, forgetting that people should be alive. Whether you meant it that way or not I take your point to mean that I should contribute more deeply, rather than add a 'refimprove' template I should add the refs myself. I've acted on that here and found one for Fraser, but from a hasty search I don't see many to choose from. -Lopifalko (talk)

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)

Again, I am applying this template indiscriminately, because on the surface its use seems justified, rather than properly understanding why I am using it. Thank you for your time and attention. I have removed it. -Lopifalko (talk)


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)

Yes interesting, thanks for pointing this out Hoary. Life has been getting in the way of Wikipedia recently, busy. -Lopifalko (talk)

Titles (etc) with hyperlinks. Etc[edit]

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 --

Unpopular Culture: Grayson Perry Selects from the Arts Council Collection. [publication details]. (Grayson Perry introduces work from the Arts Council Collection.)

-- 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; 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)

Hmm, I like the kind of link that takes you to specific details of Arts Council Collection rather than to Arts Council England. However I also like the Manual of Style's guideline for "High-value links that are worth pursuing should stand out clearly", meaning, less is more, so I am happy to go with that advice of yours.
Same as you did, I got a copy of England Uncensored when it was first published. I had noticed he'd rescued a few to sell, but thanks for thinking of me. Thinking back to then, such innocent times, my photobook habit has grown to quite some proportions since!
Between us I think we're both doing a good job of covering photography here on Wikipedia, and I am enjoying it. I have plans for more though. I think we should have articles and categories for each mainstay of the photography world, the noteworthy awards, teachers and critics, etc. I also hope to write more prose / narrative descriptions rather than just maintaining lists of books, exhibitions, etc and altering the odd phrase.
Yes, Ken Grant seems worthy of our attentions.
Regards -Lopifalko (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Now attended to. -- Hoary (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Great stuff. I was going to get around to that article at some point. I like your writing style there. -Lopifalko (talk)

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)

Yes, *completely* agree with all that. I have to get Parr/Badger 3 - essential research material for our work here (though to my shame I have barely read my I & II), from your edits I think you already have yours in hand. Only 8 Pounds for The Close Season, yay... -Lopifalko (talk)
Ugh, stretch, yawn. What? ¶ Ah yes. Like its two predecessors, Parr/Badger 3 is most diverting, and for me it was worth the money I spent on it. I haven't yet read the whole thing, but anyway I haven't noticed any foot-in-mouth. But I think "essential research material" is too generous. The one book on photobooks I know of that really is outstanding is Swiss Photobooks from 1927 to the Present. Here's a review of this unlikely-sounding book, in which Jörg Colberg concludes that it's "a pleasure to look at and read". And yes it is. Or rather, for me, it's a pleasure to look at or to read, but not both at the same time. Colberg, lucky man, can read German; so he can happily look at it and read it at the same time. By contrast, we who can't read German have to jump between two areas of the book ([A] photos and German text, and [B] English or French translation), which gets tiresome. But it's a superb book, for which the authors have really studied what they're writing about. The reader can learn very much more than which books currently excite collectors. It's not cheap, but it's a big book (dwarfing a Parr/Badger volume) and gives good value for money. Assuming, of course, that Swiss photobooks are of interest to the reader. -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Good work on Tomas van Houtryve. I am interested in Swiss photobooks, in as much as I am interested in all this photography. This Wikipedia editing is an excellent method of research, and I am learning a lot. Today I worked on Christer Strömholm‎, (shocked that someone considered 'the father of Swedish photography' should have such a feeble article - I know I should get over it, we know what poor state photography is in on Wikipedia, this is why we're here) and I found Swedish photography to be of interest, so I expect the Swiss would interest me too. Though having only skimmed Parr/Badger I/II I have some reading to do before tackling Swiss Photobooks from 1927 to the Present, but thanks I will add it to the list; and Parr/Badger III should arrive tomorrow. Let Colberg have his advantage over us with that book, his default is to operate so much of the time in a non native spoken English mode. -Lopifalko (talk)
The book of Swiss photobooks may have unexpected variety, as it contains books that people don't normally think of as Swiss but whose publishers were Swiss. It's dwarfed by Thomas Wiegand, Deutschland im Fotobuch. 287 Fotobücher zum Thema Deutschland aus der Zeit von 1915 bis 2009, whose minimal text is in German only but which shows a lot of interesting-looking photobooks I hadn't previously heard of. And I see for the first time this page, which introduces more books on photobooks that I'd never heard of. Here's a sketch toward a possible book of Swedish photobooks; pity it doesn't also mention one of the best-named among photobook publishers, The Bearded Lady. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

PHotoBolsillo and more[edit]

-- 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)

Breaking anonymity[edit]

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)

Psst! Don't tell anyone, but here are some free photobooklets. -- me 13:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Lots of mouse clicks later... Thank you, what a great tip off, lots of interesting things there. (I will get around to sending that email). -Lopifalko (talk)
My spam filter may have eaten it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, no, problem is at my end, to-do list chaos. -Lopifalko (talk)

R N Webb[edit]

Mentioning Alex Webb in the leader feels like it mentions him so as to unduly elevate her

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)

Thanks Hoary. I can see now that if it is an important aspect of their career that they have been intertwined with their spouse then it is right and proper to mention that early on. -Lopifalko (talk)
I've just noticed that NA is a member of "Category:Photographers from Adelaide". This is categorization gone wild, I think. But it's rather charming. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Vivian Maier[edit]

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)

Please read Wikipedia:External links#External links section for guidance. These URLs are not for machines to read, they are for people to read. Citation syntax makes text that is difficult for people to read compared with the simple layout recommended for the External Links section. Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk)

Got any of[edit]

Yes, I'm rather busy myself. But here's a new diversion: move a foot or two of books off a shelf onto a chair, walk around the room picking up examples of such-and-such a kind of book, stick them on the shelf, fill the gaps with Pelicans (or something whose irrelevance will be equally obvious), take a photo; shunt all the books back where they'd previously been. I'm not at all sure that the result adds anything whatever to reader understanding, but at least it makes a change from typing and involves a tiny amount of physical exercise. (Incidentally, I notice that Grim Street makes Blake Andrews' list.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:50, 14 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)

Hi H. No, I only have the Mermelstein. Good work on creating another awards article! (I miss our collaborative and thorough efforts, but am too busy for anything but casual editing currently. Back soon though.) -Lopifalko (talk)
Looking forward to Dark Knees arriving today, hence my Mark Cohen edits. I discounted Grim Street when first learned of it last year, but now the time is right for me to appreciate it. -Lopifalko (talk)
And on the off-chance that, at first, you fail to do so, all you need do is mentally retitle it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
No definitely haven't failed to do so, it's travelled around with me all weekend. I enjoyed those retitles. I just started to investigate Blake Andrews last week as his name is around so much and yet I knew so little; a great humorist. Do you have Strange Evidence? I'd like to buy Grim Street but it is £60. I recognise that it's really about having the monographs, but is Strange Evidence a worthwhile way to have cheap access to his work? Or is the print quality poor? I'm hoping the reproduction quality in Grim Street is more 'photographic' than the photocopy aesthetic of Dark Knees. -Lopifalko (talk)
I hadn't heard of Cohen's work (or if I'd heard of it, then it hadn't registered) till a couple of years ago, probably when it was written up in this or that blog (perhaps B itself). And even then I wasn't so interested. But all the fuss a few months ago over Dark Knees made me look with more interest at the little JPEGs available here and there of Cohen's work. At that time, new or near-new copies of Grim Street were a lot cheaper than new copies of Dark Knees, so I sprang for the former. It's still the only book by Cohen that I've ever seen. ¶ A very different kind of photography, but if you're looking for something excellent (and not produced with the "photocopy aesthetic" but instead tritone or similar) of which cut-price copies inexplicably abound (for now), then try Rosalind Solomon's Chapalingas. (NB there's some database cock-up that causes [and others?] to confuse this large book with something titled Tribal Textiles from Persia: Neiriz Collection in the Ethnographical Museum Berlin, so make sure that you're getting the right book. Though come to think of it the Tribal Textiles book could be very interesting too.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Surreal Wikipedia discussions[edit]

number 76,235 (or thereabouts). -- Hoary (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Funny. It's not about the bus, good of you to dissuade them away from it but I don't think you went far enough. But who am I to say, it's historic, it goes beyond photography. -Lopifalko (talk)


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)

Thanks for coming over to say that. I've only added a little. I agree there's a lot to do, at least with everything coming from his Sochi Project success. -Lopifalko (talk)

Vivian Maier[edit]

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)

Weird Wikipedia shit[edit]

Installment no. 39838 (or so): this. -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre. Judging by Missvain's editing history, I presume this is knee-jerk and a mistake. -Lopifalko (talk)
I've a hunch that some anglophones are convinced that any European personal name ending with "a" can only be attached to a female. -- Hoary (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

ISBN of "Willy Ronis: Photographs, 1926-1995"[edit]

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)

Hamdan International Photography Award[edit]

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

You have asked a lot of questions, so let us deal with one point at a time. I removed social media as per Wikipedia's WP:ELMINOFFICIAL policy - "Minimize the number of links - Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website." Of my articles you cite, Photography and the Archive Research Centre has only one link to their official site, and Paul Reas has only one link to an official site of his, his Twitter, because he has no other website other than Facebook and Twitter. -Lopifalko (talk)
"If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances."
they all was official ... there was 3 links: official website; one official page in fb (they also have twitter and instagram by the way, but they weren't shown here, precisely in order not to make the cemetery of links); one oficial page in youtube. As well, there was partition with extended information, which was also removed by you, with links to: 'video with last ceremony of ceremony 2014...' (last year was video of ceremony 2013..); 'press conference about award' and 'two pdf files brochure for the first two years.' For 2013 has not yet been typeset, so it was not there.
"and Paul Reas has only one link to an official site of his, his Twitter". Also he has "Paul Reas talking about himself (8 m video)", "'Paul Reas Impressions Gallery Talk' - Reas discusses his life's work in detail". Anyway, i have heard you... but this links was just for extended information, the same as many others articles have. I'm not agree with your such a radical approach, but anyway you'll do what you do so, as you see fit. --Leshavskaya (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
You say they were all official, but I have already told you that only 1 official site is usually allowed in Wikipedia's External Links section.
'Paul Reas talking about himself (8 m video)' is not on Paul Reas' official website, it is on 100 Years of Photography At Newport's YouTube channel. 'Paul Reas Impressions Gallery Talk' has gone from YouTube now.
Your brochure and press conference links were in the See Also section. See Also is only for links to Wikipedia articles (see WP:SEEALSO for details), not to external websites. I didn't read them but I doubt they are appropriate material for linking to from the External Links section either, they are probably more appropriate to be used for references. -Lopifalko (talk)
ok. I'll make section "See Also" and I'll put them there... I'll do it to Sunday i guess--Leshavskaya (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I have done. But actually these links to info originally were in section "see also" which you removed... If this item

agreed, then waiting for your comments about others items.--Leshavskaya (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Named this section "Notes", is it correct? --Leshavskaya (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
As I have said here already, the brochures are inappropriate for the article as they give little of interest for people to read and so would only be useful to cite as references. 'Notes' is something different (please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout). External links, such as You Tube, go in the External Links section (please read WP:EL). -Lopifalko (talk)
Ok. I'll do it within 17.08 and write to you feedback --Leshavskaya (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
by the way, even media check all the time official pages of officials and famous and popular people, and cites latest happenings in news.... because there is reflected everyday happenings and latest information while on official page mostly general and static information. so, i think official pages in social media, at least, which often cites media can and should be shown. --Leshavskaya (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This is why organisations link to their social media from the front page of their own website. It is Wikipedia policy not to normally include more than 1 official website, it is not for us to debate here. -Lopifalko (talk)
ok.--Leshavskaya (talk) 19:40, 7 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

It is enough to say that the award is open to all, and not give examples of people who are members of the group "all". Stating that people must be over 18 years of age, that submission is made through the website and the time of the deadline, is too detailed for Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not seek to be the sum of all details on a topic, this information is more suited to the HIPA website itself. There was nothing there about Pulitzer Prize, Nobel Prize. -Lopifalko (talk)
I’ll answer a bit later. --Leshavskaya (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

We could be a sentence about workshiops and exhibitions, but what I removed, "To embassies were sent 60 copies of books with works of participants, 20 copies got the Canadian Embassy for distribution among libraries and in the appropriate institutions" has no value to Wikipedia, such tiny tiny details are of no interest to readers of Wikipedia, and it is in very poorly written english. -Lopifalko (talk)
You could delete only this sentence. You could write “it is in very poorly written English” but not delete and help to make it better…. I can work only on the weekends, so I’ll try to make text better as soon as I can --Leshavskaya (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe I took an article that was messy and fluffed up with a lot of umimportant facts that were uninteresting and uninformative, and converted it to one that contained only worthwhile information and thus a much better article. -Lopifalko (talk)

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'.

Some guy created the award because he likes photography, this is not noteworthy or useful enough information to be worth including. "he calls photographers rays of light lighting the way to the bright future through his creativity and vision" - this is hyperbole, Wikipedia is not written in hyperbole, it is written in plain English. "to make own contribute in development international art and culture and continue its evolution" - this is very poor English. -Lopifalko (talk)
Here the same, you could write “it is in very poorly written English” but not delete and help to make it better….

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'

These tiny goals of the arts organisation or of the government may be of interest for justifying itself to its funders but are of no interest on an international scale. This Wikipedia article should restrict itself to what the award realises *in real terms*, who wins it, etc. -Lopifalko (talk)
I’ll answer a bit later. --Leshavskaya (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

Every claim needs to be backed up by a reference. Each winner needs a reference. -Lopifalko (talk)
Yes, and my suggestion is to confirm by references on pdf files with winners of past seasons…

Do you agree? --Leshavskaya (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

done. are we done with confirmation each claim?--Leshavskaya (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Waiting for your answer. --Leshavskaya (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Leshavskaya. I will reply to all of your points soon, but cannot do so today and probably not tomorrow as I am busy, but I will do soon. -Lopifalko (talk)

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 Thanks. --Margin1522 (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and many thanks for considering all this. Yes I agree with everything you describe about moving 'Photoworks (agency)' to 'Photoworks' with a hat note. That is something I have wanted to see happen. Without knowing much about it I suspect 'PhotoWorks (ray tracing software)' is old and obscure and 'Photoworks (agency)' a much more common destination for the term. (Thanks too for the Wonga tip). -Lopifalko (talk)
Hi. I left a request to have 'Photoworks' deleted, so it won't block the move. I hope I did it right, I've never done this before. We shall see. -- Margin1522 (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
All fixed. -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Roy Stuart[edit]

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 (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Roy. Please bear in mind this is an article about you, and not your own article. The opening line of Roy Stuart (photographer) does say "is an American photographer and film director". As for your date of birth, a reliable reference, Bibliothèque nationale de France, supports the claim of it being 25 October 1955. On the other hand, your Facebook claims it is 25 October 1975, yet you appeared in The Godfather Part II (1974). If the date is wrong, have you a reliable source that says what it really is? -Lopifalko (talk)

Musée Réattu[edit]

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)

Yes indeed. It is Done. -Lopifalko (talk)
Thank you! Olivier (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you twice: you pushed me to improve the article, and I have nominated it for DYK. Olivier (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Good, thanks for saying so, that's a great outcome. -Lopifalko (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13[edit]

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)

Jamie Baldridge Article[edit]

Thank you! It looks much better after your conscientious edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Interesting (talkcontribs) 21:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so. -Lopifalko (talk)

Out of practice[edit]

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)

Well done for getting back into the hot seat Hoary. Whether or not you created an *interesting* article so far, it's a very good starting point. We both seem to be out of the Wikipedia loop at present. -Lopifalko (talk)

DYK for PC Music[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)