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

GA reassessment of Hiroh Kikai[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Hiroh Kikai/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Photojournalists, List of[edit]

I see that you are very busy, so no need to reply. I just wanted to say that I am trying to list all (some perhaps only remotely) relevant photographers found in 2 good German lexika and any way you look at it there are tons of red links.--Radh (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The first thing I notice is that some of the redlinks look familiar. You have redlinked Lisette Modell, Joseph Koudelka and Jun Moringa, but we have bluelinked Lisette Model, Josef Koudelka and Jun Morinaga. And those were merely three redlinked names that jumped out at me: I didn't look for them. So I'd start by looking again at those redlinks. The "article" on Morinaga is particularly atrocious (it's one of three hundred or so generated by somebody's bot and almost untouched thereafter); you'd be welcome to add to it. ¶ Morinaga is best known for work that would not normally be described as "documentary"; offhand I can't think of any photojournalism by him, though I'm not going to look him up now. Other names in your list include Avedon and Bailey, who've famously done portrait work for magazines but are hardly photojournalists. Indeed, I note that your title is Documentary, Journalists and Fashion Photographers and I start to wonder what the list is doing at Talk:List of photojournalists. How about moving it to your talk page or some subpage thereof? (Cf this.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Very sorry about the spelling errors, but where I have not been schlampig, I have simply followed the dictionary. I thought I start listing all the names in both dictionaries and then look at the wikipedia entries. As fashion photographers work for fashion magazines, I thought they belong somehow to the publishing world. I can see your point though. On Morinaga, JK writes: "Frühes Interesse für den Bildjournalismus und die amerikanische "straight photography", which really does not look like much.--Radh (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with moving the list, but as I am personally most interested in phtographers of the American West and "Native Americans", I think it would be better to concentrate on those. The general list was basically to learn the names myself.--Radh (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The trouble with such a broad understanding of "photojournalist" is that it threatens to include well over three quarters of photographers of any note -- and then one wonders what it adds to a list of photographers. I think the better idea would be to move the list to your own userspace, where you'd be free to develop it in any way you wished. Two Japanese photographers of the American west I think of immediately: Ikkō Narahara (see Where Time Has Vanished), and Bishin Jumonji, who was so impressed by the majestic landscapes of Ansel Adams and so forth that he wittily photographed the Grand Canyon with a Minox (the results only appearing in one or other of the three big Japanese photo mags of the time, and in the recent book Kansei no bakemono ni naritai). There must be many more Japanese photographers of the American west but I'm sorry to say that my mind's blank right now. -- Hoary (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the names, and I am sorry about my legasthenics, also can see your point about being too extensive and so on. I wpuld not mind moving the page, but really think it would be better to simply erase the whole thing and concentrate on stuff which really interests me; Pueblo, esp. Hopi photographers, Arizona,...--Radh (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Have erased the nonsense, the information from the German books was protected and not usable anyway? But want to mention a few names I really like: John Gutmann (b. Breslau, worked in San Francisco), de:Eva Siao, maoist China, nl:Alexandrine Tinne, b. 1835, Den Haag. My knowledge of Japanese photographers is very nearly zero I am afraid.--Radh (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a book of Gutmann's work; it is indeed good. Thank you for the other two names, which I'd never heard of. Do you know Louis Stettner? Not the American west but the American east; still, worth a look. And a Japanese photographer you might like is Yasuhiro Ishimoto, a poet of Chicago. -- Hoary (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I see that there is a Stettner picture in the Prestel dictionary. Of Alexandrine Tinne I just learned from the Jörg Krichbaum thing, which has a beautiful picture of Den Haag. About the only japanese photographer I know is Shinkichi Tajiri, (european order), b. 1923 in LA, who lives in Baarlo, the Netherlands (RM). He has studied in Chicago (1946-'48) and then in Paris, taught in Germany (Wuppertal, Berlin, 1973-) and has (from 1975 on) revitalized the Daguerreotypie: I know some nudes and pictures from the Berlin Wall. Before that, in 1971, he also did a book Die Mauer with 660 photos documenting all the 43 km of this monument (RM, also in JK).--Radh (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have added a bit to the Tajiri entry, there seem to be slight differences between information given on his web site and my 2 books. I will also look around on the web. Just see that the dutch entry nl:Shinkichi Tajiri is best for the biography, the japanese has some pictures. P. S.: tons of stuff on the web. [1] --Radh (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Demi's Birthday Suit[edit]

I am currently reviewing your concerns at Demi's Birthday Suit. You have misused {{dubious}}. The tag is not meant for things clearly stated in The New York Times such as Gair's consideration for the "Absolute Gair" campaign just because you can't believe it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the relevant part:
soon after the release of the magazine Gair became such a pop culture icon that she was considered for an [[Absolut Vodka]] Absolut Gair ad campaign.<ref name=AMA>{{cite web|url=|title= Advertising's Marathon Auditions|accessdate=2008-02-19|publisher=[[The New York Times Company]]|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=[[1993-06-06]]|author=Elliott, Stuart}}</ref>{{dubious}}
I'll autoplagiarize from here:
I see no mention of "pop culture icon" or anything like it. Rather, an account manager named Jolie Schaffzin was impressed by the Moore photo and the reaction to it, and thought of paying Gair to do much the same thing for this vodka advert. Arguably the photo or the cover was a pop culture icon in Schaffzin's eyes; there's no hint that the artist was an icon.
So yes, she was considered for an ad campaign, but there's no hint in the article that she was a "pop culture icon", whatever that might mean. -- Hoary (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Mushfiqul Alam[edit]

  • Hi Hoary, Asking you as a to cite/put reference that Mushfiqul Alam's CD has been published in 2009? When the CD can be easily accessible (bought/listened etc.) by anybody in the world and the fact is known by few millions Bangladeshi at least that the CD has been out there...same goes for the books he wrote...

Most of the medias of Bangladesh don't publish everything online. Same goes for the Japanese medias also. In these cases, will FACTs become null and void and tags look like "[citation needed]" hung all over articles to look bad? :-( --Planetbd (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The rule is simple: If there are no reliable sources for assertions, those assertions can't go into articles here.

Is the CD not sold by anyone other than Alam himself? Googling for it brings breathless praise, often calling him a "Beethoven of 21st century", in the unlikeliest places, e.g. here. And here we even read that Melody Of Joy, the melodious track gives us remembrance of glorious decades of 80s and 90s with melody pops and rocks. Metal Age, followed by a melody track gives us a shot that the artist can play metal rocks with his great magic of melody too!, allegedly written by one "Samantha Stuart, Media Editor, USA". Typically these ecstatic plugs for the CD don't get much in the way of informative response. It all looks rather spammy.

Unfortunately that photo organization says little about the past "salons" and nothing at all about 1999. This is the closest there is; for each of the last three years, it talks of 130 winners of whom six won special prizes. Would Alam have been in the smaller group, or just in the larger?

Here, somebody who appears to be the same person seems keen to deal in anything and everything, although it's not clear what company he has, if any. -- Hoary (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Forums are full of crazy fans with bubbles that are always ignored as refrence for Wikipedia for sure. But how this be can ignored that the CD is published at all that I can buy from retails stores of my country and listen loud and clear? :-O
How can I answer about a Japanese photo organization when they doesn't care to cite in English for themselves? :-O
Chinese trade sites should be ignored just like forums. Better you should look at Cotheeka Group to find more about his businesses. He is a multi-talented person and greatly honored in South Asia for his enterprenourship. Some websites use these to bring visitors -a common issue for the famous ones.--Planetbd (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to look at the website of Cotheeka Group other than to look for keywords that can then be looked for elsewhere. And the reason's simple: Cotheeka is his own company.
If Alam is indeed greatly honored in South Asia, where is the evidence for this? I think that the largest newspaper in the area is the Times of India, which conveniently has a good search facility: it shows nothing. Has he been written up in any other newspaper, whether in Bengali, English, or any other language?
Why does WorldCat not mention any book by him? (See here.) Or anyway it doesn't under that name. If the books actually use a different script, then please provide it, complete with ISBN numbers. seems a fairly active website about Bangla music. No mention there of Mushfiqul Alam. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Is Times of India truly "largest" that FAILED to show anything about Muhammad Yunus (an honorable Nobel Prize Winner from South Asia)? :-O?
I hope to receive the ISBN numbers soon. FAILED to mention of Asif Akbar also who is one of the most popular singers of Bangladesh with lots of albums and decade of activity records in the music industry...same goes for many other popular musicians of Bangladesh...
Unlikely western/european countries, even the top models, actors etc. (glamour and publicity dependent professions) of Bangladesh don't care to put their information online, let alone Great Men and Women who don't like Lime Light at all. So, it becomes hard for us to portray them with Online information sources when plenty of Offline sources are available here and there. However, thanks for your time and input. Happy editing!--Planetbd (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that Mushfiqul Alam is damned by non-mention by the Times of India. Or that a musician is damned by non-mention at this or that site. Or that books are damned by non-mention at WorldCat. I'm merely recording my puzzlement over the apparent difference between claims made for this person and the googlable evidence thereof.
Offline sources are fine (if independent and reliable). And these sources don't have to be in English. Do you have anything? -- Hoary (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just want to point it out that all of the major newspapers in Bangladesh have websites, and news archives going back to the early 2000s. The Daily Star is the major Bangladeshi English language newspaper ... interestingly, there is zero mention of the (author/photographer/what not) Mushfiqul Alam there since 2003. The major Bengali language newspapers (e.g. The Prothom Alo, Janakantha etc.) also have web archives, so any detailed coverage by media would not be difficult to find.

In the end, it appears to me that, using a large number of socks, Mr. Alam is simply spamming Wikipedia. I did not find any reference to him in Bangladeshi media in recent years ... the "Beethoven" posts in various forums are yet another attempt by Mr. Alam to promote himself. --Ragib (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: PlanetBD's claim that Times of India has not mentioned Muhammad Yunus is incorrect. See this. Also, the claim that failed to mention Asif Akbar (popularly known only as "Asif") is also incorrect. --Ragib (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Would you like to follow this admirably clear instruction manual?
I'd be inclined to do so myself, but you know much more about Bangladesh matters than I, and I'm busy (and lazy). -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I've already afd'd the album article, and Ohnoitsjamie has afd'd the bio. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hoary, According to your suggestion I added offline references to the article but User:Ragib is still trying to defame the person (not sure why!) unnecessarily. Published materials (Catalogs, Books, CDs etc.) are available at many libraries and shops that can be viewed by any person in the world (except blind ones) that should be acceptable as Reference I thought.--Planetbd (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yukon Quest[edit]

Hello. Your name was recommended when I asked someone about copy editors for a FAC I'm planning to submit. I'm trying to gather pre-submission reviewers for Yukon Quest, and if you have the time, I'd love some feedback. Any level of detail you'd be willing to give would be appreciated. If not, I understand. :) Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As usual, I preferred to work on the article over telling others what they should do. And a few minutes ago I finished zipping my way through it. (I hope I made no mistakes; feel free to revert.) It looks good -- although as somebody completely ignorant of snow sports, sports events, dogs, Yukon, and Alaska, I'm hardly the best person to judge. However, I was rather puzzled by the lack of any mention of risk of frostbite in an event combining severe wind chill and long hours. -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. Looking back, it's easy to say, "Doh! That was so obvious, how could I have missed that?" but that's exactly why you should have someone else look at it. As to the frostbite, I assumed that would be such an obvious thing that it didn't warrant a mention ... what do you think would be appropriate? JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I suppose frostbite would be only one part of it. I'm a bit puzzled by the nitty-gritty of this sport. Of course if you have an article about this or that sports event you don't normally need to describe the sport itself, but the closest I can find to an article on this sport is Dogsled racing, which says nothing about protection against frostbite, breaks for food, etc. (You take a sleeping bag, but where do you lay it out?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
There's a few mushers who actually don't take a sleeping bag -- they just have a few blankets and curl up closer to the fire on the theory that if you're cold, you won't "waste" as much time sleeping. But do you think I should explain this kind of thing ... it doesn't have as much to do with the race as much as the running of it, and I don't want to get bogged down in trivia. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This kind of thing doesn't seem trivial to me; it should be explained somewhere, but probably not in this article, because it's unlikely to be specific to this race. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I've thrown the frostbite/cold weather stuff into a paragraph in the weather section. I also moved the history section up to the front of the article at the suggestion of another reviewer, but I'm not sure if I like it or not. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the continued help with the article. I guess we're now at the trimming stage, and the things you changed about the lede are all great. If you have any questions about the remainder of the article, please don't hesitate to ask. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try, but the demands of RL are rather pressing. -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand. I'm working with Maralia on it, so please don't feel pressed from this angle. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, I saw that you put an internal link in the article. Is that allowed under the MOS? If so, it's a nifty trick that I'll have to keep in mind. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't remember having read that it's allowed; it's so obviously a convenience that it never occurred to me to look. (If MOS disallows it, then screw MOS. And if the FAC process disallows what MOS nuttily disallows, then screw the FAC process. If I seem jaded about these processes of official approval, then see this.) However, there's no auto-updating: if the title of the subsection changes then it stops working. Which of course is why I added the invisible comment. -- Hoary (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmm-hmm, it's now below 63,000 bytes for the first time since April. -- Hoary (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For going above and beyond the call of duty in trimming Yukon Quest down to size and for improving its prose to a superior level, I award you this barnstar. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For editing Yukon Quest over several weeks and nibbling away at the prose, I award you this barnstar. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Well well, two gongs just for my little manicuring of one article. Thank you very much; I'll display them with pride. ¶ And now, how about FACing the article? -- Hoary (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wanted to ask you ... in light of the amount of work you put into the article, would you like to be listed as an official co-nominator for the FAC? JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Most likely, thanks but no thanks. Offhand I'm not sure what "co-nominator" means. Surely it can't have its everyday sense, as it's clear that you nominated [past tense] it all by yourself. But from your question I tentatively infer that it might mean something like "person who should get a sizable share of the credit if/when the article succeeds". And if it's that, no way: I haven't contributed a smidgen of content to the article, which as far as I've bothered to see is all yours, plus mere fiddling by others such as myself. -- Hoary (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It goes beyond "fiddling" when the history of the article shows such a significant number of high-quality edits by one editor. You didn't have to do everything that you did, and for that I'm very thankful. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Shannon Rose[edit]

I notice that you unblocked User:Shannon Rose. You may wish to follow her activities. I'm not sure of the details of the agreement she has with you, but she may be violating them. She's been pretty nasty to me an others and has filed a frivolous SPI as revenge. Note that she frequently deletes uncomfortable things from her talk page, so its appearance is not a picture of reality. Brangifer (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind the retitling.
I don't plan to follow anybody's activities, but I'd already glanced at SR's then-recent activities and realized that he/she'd (legitimately) deleted plenty of stuff from her talk page.
There was no agreement between her and me about civility, politeness, or whatever, so there's nothing there that she could have broken.
I'm only rarely accused of being a sock-puppet (or puppetmaster) but so far have been most amused when this has happened. Learn to laugh at it.
SR makes good contributions when he/she sticks to the subject at hand and avoids fantasizing about such (non-) matters as other contributors' identities and motivation. I'd ignore the latter and concentrate on the former. If the latter gets out of hand, respond firmly but dispassionately. If that doesn't do the job, take it up briefly and dispassionately at WP:AN/I or wherever. Anyway, try to ignore silliness on talk pages. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi. I've just sent you a private email about the Hamsters article. Your help would be much appreciated. Bluewave (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

On the same note, your email received and article duly watchlisted, although the IP address is so unspecific. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Himalayan Dolpo[edit]

Hi, thanks for your detailed explanation which is what should have been issued by the very first editor. After reading your comments, I now see what I had to work on. But it is all too late now. I simply do not have time to do it all over again - I am spending long hours to get the web tidied up in addition to my normal work and doing work around the house! The whole experience leaves a very bad taste about Wiki. I am sure Wiki will live quite happily without information on our Project and our Project will survive without having any information about it in Wiki. But having read various comments by other potential contributors, I know I am not the only one who feels this way which is a warning sign Wiki may want to take notice of. Make things hard for people, they will willingly walk away. I know my presence in Wiki will not be missed at all but just know there will be many others who feel exactly the same way (substantiated by the comments I have read!). Good luck and thanks for taking time to respond - much appreciated. Gdesilva (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Jacob Riis[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the artcile which you can see at Talk:Jacob Riis/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Jacob Riis[edit]

I'll get to it as soon as I can. I have had a habit of reading the book whenever I visit a fast food restaurant, so I've only read as much as I can in the time it takes me to eat. I'm sure my library has other books, but I checked this one out on a hitorical interest whim, so I'll simply focus on drawing from it alone for the time being. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply, 1). There's no inline citation, and 2). The section should be merged into the biography anyway in the interests of neutrality. "Criticism" sections are frowned up, and I'm basically trimming it before figuring out how to integrate it into the biography. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have me wrong[edit]

I think you really have me all wrong. I don't know how much or how little to share. I have fought really hard in the past for these articles which LibStar and other editors have deleted.

I respect, deeply respect your contributions.

The only reason I redirected that relations page was in the fear that no one was watching it, and it would go up for deletion a second time by Libstar or other editors. I am glad that you are watching this article, there are two more AFDs today that no one is watching, that will probably be deleted, despite me adding the {{rescue}} tag and notifying the wikiprojects of the countries, this is a battle I have gone through for a year now, and which has gone on since 2007.

Finally, finally, enough of these articles have been deleted that it is almost over, and a sizable majority have been saved, even if they are only redirects, the history is intact and maybe, hopefully someone can come and unredirect these articles and work on them some other time.Ikip (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I may have got you wrong, but I think you've got me wrong too. The Armenia-Japan article was on my watchlist, and its transformation into a redirect was a mild irritation. (Treble-wavy-underline "mild", please. No major disaster if it had even been deleted, frankly.) But talk of the conversion of such articles as Malaysia-Thailand relations to redirects came as quite a surprise. However, I see now that the latter "article" is just a crappy, unsourced stub. So I'm not knocking you for anything; I'm sorry if it appeared that I was doing so. ¶ Thank you but you are way too kind about my own contributions. I do odds and sods here and there but it's ages since I created anything of any significance. -- Hoary (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Lord, I sometimes hate wikipedia, you open up just a little bit, and someone jumps all over you.
I removed that comment. sigh. I should have just emailed you. I usually do when I can anyway. Ikip (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I hear you. Probably it's better just to turn off the computer and go for a walk, have a beer, read a book or whatever. ¶ Hmm, I wish I could do one of those. Instead I'm taking little breaks within writing a pair of rather long and intricate but important emails in a language it seems I'm never going to master. -- Hoary (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:V–J day in Times Square - "resistance put up by the woman"[edit]

Have posted a new reply here for further discussion -- not sure whether you saw that and I will look there for your reply. ----83d40m (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Trans-Alaska Pipeline System[edit]

For my next project, I'm going to get either Trans-Alaska Pipeline System or Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System up to FA. I've pushed both to GA (assuming the latter passes its imminent review), and wanted to get your thoughts on the matter. Which one should I go for, and what about the article do you think needs to be improved before I start getting into the nitty gritty of style? JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I really don't know. They both arouse two reactions in me: (i) they seem literate and well sourced, but (ii) they leave me blank, as I know no more about these matters than I do (or anyway did) about dog sled racing. The only way for me to start to get into either the one or the other is to print it out and read it carefully. Frankly I'm not overly keen to get into that very soon, but I'm no less keen than if the subject were something of which I knew. The thing is, I've realized that it's been a very long time since I did anything genuinely constructive, as opposed to dicking around with others' work (Yukon Quest) or clearing up after others' silliness.
The mediocrity of the article on Jacob Riis has been gnawing at me for some weeks. It was a "Good Article" (no thanks to me) that I frequently restored from depredations by (I presume) silly schoolboys but never bothered to read; when it was subjected to the GA reevaluation I read it for the first time, decided that it was pretty bad, and said so (see its talk page). Though I've already improved it here and there, it's still bad; and rather than just moaning about it I think I should fix it.
When that's through, I'll be more receptive to invitations to go through other people's articles. Though if you do decide to do one or the other, I might take a quick look. -- Hoary (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. If there's any way I can assist you with the Riis article, please don't hesitate to ask. I'd love to be able to repay you for your help with the Yukon Quest article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer! If you could just put it on your watchlist and thereby augment the little group of people who guard it against debasement, I'd be most grateful. Meanwhile, I'm plodding through Alland's book, which together with Riis's autobiography is the only substantive source I have on me right now. Unfortunately it shows signs of carelessness; the article certainly shouldn't be put forward as "Good" for a second time until all the content has been checked against a later, scholarly work. -- Hoary (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

List of most expensive photographs[edit]

Hey man, have you seen what happened to this article, List of most expensive photographs? I'm not sure this was an improvement and now that I look at it, the editor included a self-reference. I wonder if it was better the way it was before, especially since it was well-cited. TheMindsEye (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeeurgghhhh. -- Hoary (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ew. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi. It's the first time I edit a wikipedia page. I have his official biography because I know him. It's the same I found there I don't know how to put "sourcing", could you help me? Thank you. Yakalayakala —Preceding undated comment added 10:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

Your version of the article seems to plagiarize this, which doesn't come with a statement saying it's available with the needed Creative Commons license. I've therefore had to go back to the older version of the article.
If you'd like to use that web page as a source for your own writing about Ciol, go ahead. At that point, you source a statement like this:
Here's a statement.<ref>And here's the source for it.</ref>
-- Hoary (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand that "law", But.... Pardon me please, I never used wiki before. ok, I will try to do my own writing, but my english is not such good as your. :( Yakalayakala —Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

Thank you[edit]

Thank you. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's like a reunion at the Lizzie Miller AfD...[edit]

With DGG there, all we need is 1027E!  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that nobody's yet invoked WP:HOTTIE. Ah yes, DGG, a man of surprises; have you seen this? -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

P C Pandey[edit]

Oh hellfire, hadn't seen that. Feel free to blam it/ nominate it and ping me with an AfD link when you're done. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter Lik legal spat[edit]

You want data, check this data out: (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to find some sources to update the Peter Lik page when I found this about his recent legal action involving another nearby photographer. I thought you might find it interesting given recent events! Jenafalt (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Lik -- yet another photographer of whom I'd never heard.
Some rooting around shows me that he's a star in a photographic world of which I had once been vaguely aware but whose existence I had almost forgotten. It's the kind of stuff that used to fill (still fills?) many pages of Popular Photography and the like (mags I've done no more than glance at for over a decade) and whose large prints are perhaps sold to very well heeled tourists and others to tone up their living rooms. If I'm to believe passim (not a RS by WP standards, of course, and thus unciteable) then for some photographers commercial success here has very much to do with showroom gimmickry and sales patter.
I admire Adams's work but have never been tempted to buy any book. Indeed, I've got very few books dedicated to landscape photography, and -- aside from a few pleasant but forgettable little books by Homer Sykes and the like -- the only one in color that I can think of offhand is about a single area of northern Lithuania, by a Lithuanian photographer whose name unfortunately eludes me. (Incidentally I'm not knocking Sykes: there are two very different books by him that I want to see and perhaps buy.)
It's depressing that there are so many photographers who've done superb landscape work and who lack articles in en:WP. One is I. K. Inha; get an eyeful of this. -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a fantastic photo. One of the best landscape exhibitions that I have seen is by an Australian guy called Gordon Undy - huge black and white large format images of the Australian bush. They don't reproduce well on a computer screen though.
The more I look at this luridly colored merchandise the more mindboggling the industry appears. Consider this. We needn't take the asking price of $32,500 seriously: after all, it is the asking price. To me, what's extraordinary is the straightfaced declaration: Edition Size: 950, compounded by the lack of information about the nature of the print, and the strong indication elsewhere that the prints are all digital. So the staff get the adjustments just right, set the number of prints to 950, hit the Enter button and sit back with beers as the printer does what it's programmed to do. What a business! What's the potential buyer supposed to infer from "950" -- that an example is rare? It's a normal size for an edition of photo book where I come from. Most publishers don't specify the edition size conspicuously, if at all; but an exception is the "Hysteric" series; as an example, Nagano Shigeichi's excellent Hysteric Fourteen (edition of 800, each numbered) is still available four years after publication. -- Hoary (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
what is funny is that while Lik is suing this guy who works for Lough they both take the same photos. See this picture (famously taken of the same area by ansel adams) on Lik's website: and then search for "burning bush" on lough's website. How come people go to Las Vegas to gamble and get married and end up spending all their money on 'limited edition' landscape photography anyway? Their marketing skills are astounding. Jenafalt (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, Hoary, Hoary, you count yourself as one who knows about photography? Why then would you use the word "print" to describe a "photograph"? Do you know the difference? As for your obvious bias on it being "digital" or not - do you then also assert (by this statement it suggest you do) that if am image is captured or produced digitally it cannot be or is not consider a photograph? Would love to hear how you feel on this one. (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I use "print" where the term seems appropriate. I've bought prints in my time. Use of a CCD and/or an inkjet or related printer isn't incompatible with "photograph". (I took a few photographs with a digital camera just today.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
PS I'm bewildered by the objection to use of "print" for a photograph. This use of the term is entirely normal, at least in the material that I read. See for example the mid-section of this blog page by somebody who's unusually experienced and knowledgable (or just search within it for the string "Photographers have been compulsive print-makers since the time of Fox Talbot" and see how the essay develops. -- Hoary (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hoary - you state above: "If I'm to believe passim (not a RS by WP standards, of course, and thus unciteable) then for some photographers" ... Well my friend you already have sited this website as a valid RS by WP standards by using it in your arguments on LOUGH....back peddling are we? This is a prime example of the double standards run rampant at Wiki. (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages don't need or require reliable sources as WP:RS only applies to mainspace. There is no double standard here. If you have something useful to contribute, please do, but keep the snide remarks off the site. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

However, Hoary, has used this reference as a means to keep a valid point OFF a page - now, here, he says its NOT a valid source. So why is it he can say it is in one place but then not in another? Isn't that a double standard if there ever was one? (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have something to say about the article, better say it on the article's web page, for various reasons, one of which is that I'm about to go to bed. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the Lough camp will find your use of the Wiki resource, in yet another attempt to discredit and defame Lough, very interesting - so much for neutrality. Do you work for Lik? opps, have i gone too far? (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote above, please keep the rude and derisive remarks of the site. They have no place here. Thank you. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A favor?[edit]

Hi Hoary. I've come to the conclusion, over the few years I've been here, that Wikipedia is much harsher on real, verifiable article content than it is on blatant editor mis-behavior. But even in light of that, I think it should be pretty obvious that any editor who posts something like this cannot in any way be considered a potentially productive contributor. Any page s/he might touch would be poisoned. I realize there is probably a proper bureaucratic process for getting something like this done, but my outlook on Wikipedia would rise a bit if you could by-pass that, and find it in the goodness of your heart to block this illiterate, bigoted son-of-a-bitch permanently. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh but Dekkappai, this is Wikipedia. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit: the the xenophobic, the sociopathic, the psychotic. Permablock an illiterate, bigoted son-of-a-bitch, and the illiterate, bigoted son-of-a-bitch just bounces back as an IP or another ID. Yes, I could continue by blocking all of them. Ah, no I couldn't, because the effort (even if I could muster it) would draw attention to the illiterate, bigoted son-of-a-bitch, who could point out that he'd been blocked capriciously rather than via due process, and who would thereby gain sympathy and credibility. And no I am not defending the existing system, which I think is horrible. Anyway, this combination is my first response. -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Dammit... I guess a guy's got to do something really bad, like adding links to outside articles to get a perma-ban here (see: User talk:Philonexus)... Your response (on the guy's talkpage) was far more time and logic than he deserved. If this were Dekkappedia, the evil article-adder would be cut some slack, while racist/nationalist/blathering morons of all stripes would be given swift and merciless kicks in the arse. Dekkappai (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but if J Wales were instead Hoary, people would have to earn the right to edit here, a right that they could quickly thereafter lose in any of various ways. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
That's something on which Hoaripedia and Dekkappedia might actually agree... I keep thinking about editing in the Godzilla articles or the main Cinema of Japan article, but both areas are so full of unsourced drivel, they'll have to be gutted and started over from scratch... Over at Dekkappedia, if someone added something like, "Each Japanese film is unique, just like each Japanese person is unique." He'd be zapped and banned on the spot. (I kid you not, I read that at the article...) And if I'm going to start something from scratch, the siren-voice of Naomi Tani and her ilk call my name... Dekkappai (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi my guardian angels! I appreciate what both of you have done for me. It is so reassuring to have friends like you, gentlemen. Thank you very much. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Happy editing to you too, Oda Mari. There are good and bad everywhere. Don't let the nutcases get you down. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re; standards[edit]

Hi, Hoary, just making a point regarding the recent discussion of standards on the Language refdesk. My example contrasting "you love tennis more than me" and "you love tennis more than I" was meant to illustrate the dangers of sloppy speech. I was pointing out that both sentences imply different elisions: "you love tennis more than [you love]me" vs "you love tennis more than I [love tennis]. Inadvertently you have proved my point...with your misunderstanding! Take care, Rhinoracer (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

But to say that these are the only readings is simplistic. (Is this dichotomy from the teacher's guide to some intermediate ESL book, perhaps?) There's also the perfectly idiomatic "you love tennis more than me" with the unquestioned meaning (as contextually determined) of "you love tennis more than I do". (Of course this does not invalidate the other meaning in another context.) Because it's idiomatic among L1 English speakers, it's correct, no matter how some prescriptivist opuscules may rail against it. The syntax here is controversial, and The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language devotes pages (from 1113) to it. I shan't attempt to summarize the arguments here, but will merely repeat It is longer than a foot and He's poorer than poor as two of that book's examples of than indubitably functioning as a preposition, and Kim will be giving the first lecture, me the second and What, me wear a kilt? as its examples of accusative subjects. ¶ If prescriptivists are troubled by the ambiguity of "you love tennis more than me" once the "wrong" (not!) reading is allowed, they're getting their knickers in a twist quite unnecessarily. Context makes clear. And if they have it in for potential ambiguity, saying that contextual knowledge should not be necessary for interpretation, they show a stunning ignorance of the degree of potential ambiguity that runs through English (or any other language): see for example Pinker (The Stuff of Thought) on unconscious polysemy. -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, oh, <coughs, clears throat ... prescriptivist opuscule is jerked out of slumber> I ruled ages ago that such utterances as "you love tennis more than me" are unacceptable where the meaning is "you love tennis more than I do"—even among the working classes, and even among ill-educated children. Rhino no doubt feels that disambiguation through grammatical tension should not have to rely on context. However, it is hard to be dogmatic about "It is me/I" ... "It am I"? Tony (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You call this griping? Back in my day, people really knew how to gripe about declining standards... Dekkappai (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Shhh... don't wake 'em, Dekk... They may rub their eyes and notice they're at a project where the question is not "than me/I", but "then me"... Sometimes it's more comforting to write about writing here then to write... Dekkappai (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah but it's always fun to deflate myth, Dekka. -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Tony, you're free to eschew as many constructions as you wish, but the unwashed and even washed masses happily use them to the point where unblinkered descriptive grammars present them with no warning "%". (And see this.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

But, Hoary, your response to my initial example illustrates perfectly what I was trying to convey: that careless phrasing leads to misunderstanding. Standard English is a register of the language that, ideally, all should master to facilitate comprehension across classes and cultures. How many refdesk questions are unintelligible because the questioner has poorly framed his query? Standard English has a function quite separate from that of colloquial English. By the way, your examples of prepositional 'than' can easily be interpreted as using conjunctions..."it is longer than a foot [is]"; "poorer than poor" incorporates a conjunction linking two adjectives. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your first example: A "disinterested judge" is not the same as an "uninterested judge". I agree. Briefly, one of the meanings of the former is that of the latter and has been for a very long time (whether "language mavens" like it or not). If you want to express "have no personal interest in" and not "bored", you can hardly use "disinterested" and appeal to people's fastidiousness, because this appeal would be based on a studied ignorance of the lexicographic facts of English, as laid out in the OED. The context may or may not make the meaning clear. (Polysemy is rampant in English; see the book by Pinker that I recommended earlier.) If it doesn't make it clear, rephrase accordingly.
To say that "it is longer than a foot" is an abridged form of "it is longer than a foot is" seems perverse to me. Now, my opinion hardly matters. However, you're also disagreeing with the considered opinion of Rodney Huddleston and Geoff Pullum, two people hugely more expert in the syntax of English than myself, writing in what is almost unchallenged as the most authoritative single-volume grammar of English. (Would you care to nominate a superior alternative?)
Yes, that page is riddled with sloppily written questions. I'd be grateful if the questioners checked what they'd written before hitting "Save page". However, I see no reason to infer that the level of English has declined. If the web had existed fifty or a hundred years ago and had been as open to all then as it is now, I think we'd see similar junk prose. I've seen no argument to the contrary, other than the very dubious one that back in the sepia tinted days schoolmarms taught grammar -- parts of speech? prescriptivist mythology? -- to the kiddies. Hoary (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Perverse? It is the truth. And yes,in matters of Standard English I will defer to the shade of Henry Fowler before I do to Huddleston & Pullum.

The Cambridge Grammar is a descriptive one; Standard English is, by its nature, prescriptive. I fear, however, that you are one of those "anything goes" descriptivists who so bedevil us poor teachers who merely strive to teach our students how to communicate effectively in English.

If you think my language tendentious, please re-read what you've written in response to me. Whatever language register one favours, courtesy is to be prized, however vigourous the debate. Rhinoracer (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to prepare for and then attend an unusually long and complex meeting today, so shan't be able to attend to Fowlerian matters for several hours. In the meantime, a question. You seem to imply that I have been discourteous. I cheerfully admit to discourtesy toward simplistic prescriptivist books and their underinformed authors. And I may have been discourteous about your opinions. But I sense that you think I've been discourteous about you. No such discourtesy was intended. I've just now re-read what I've written in response to you, as invited, and am mystified. If you specify where I've been discourteous, perhaps I can explain. -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your interest in penises[edit]

This edit of yours suggests that you're interested in penises. Please read about them, don't write about them. But if you must write about them, don't write about them in irrelevant articles such as User_talk: -- User: (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You are seriously confused, IP. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Man, I miss the most interesting stuff when I take a break. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Farndon, Cheshire and Leominster[edit]

I've reverted your edits yet again because there is no reason for those names to be in the articles. You claim you are 'restoring' with your edits, yet the articles survived fine for months without them. And looking back at the edit history it seems it wasn't even your alleged vandal who took them out. (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was. Farndon, Leominster. -- Hoary (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

hey moron, perhaps you should pay attention. consensus has been reached do NOT include the welsh name in the opening or infobox of english towns. ... added (twice!) by

Please don't remove this, with its use of "moron". If this person wants to call me a moron, let him call me a moron. -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey person, do divulge where (on this website) such consensus has been reached. Write in the talk page of one of the articles, and do try not to succumb to any temptation to make obscure anatomical suggestions. -- Hoary (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

See this (and threads above and below) if you haven't :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)