User:Hoary/Archive25

Guinnois all round! (The wheaten bread appears to be complimentary..) Stevejohnson82 (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

States

When you mentioned a "less emotive state", I was thinking of Connecticut. But that's probably not what you had in mind. Anyhow, I think the final paragraph you removed, while unsourced and unencyclopedic editorial opinion, was pretty on the mark. Of course, I canceled my subscription after they decided to publish Farber's piece on teh HIV/AIDS conspiracy - because if I know they don't fact-check medical articles, where I can catch them, then why should I trust their writing on subjects where I have to take their word for it? Anyhow... MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed some rather good turns of phrase in what I impatiently reverted. But, questions of the unencyclopedic aside, I didn't know where the boundary was between the perceptive and the horseshitty.

I'd hardly been aware of Harper's, vaguely assuming that it was some vehicle to persuade the rich and insecure to spend yet more of their money on handbags and wristwatches. But one day in a bookstore in Seoul's new airport some front-page headline caught my eye and I flicked through it, bought it, and read it on the way to Yurp. The best ingredient was an article by Lapham, a new name to me. I was delighted to infer that the thinking and reading US population was still sufficiently numerous to support a fourth magazine worth reading (after The Baffler, NYRB and [bits of] the New Yorker).

I might have guessed that this wouldn't last.

Thinking of the discerning US public's demand for accuracy in reporting ... seen this? -- Hoary (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I used to read Harper's religiously - among other things, for some time it was one of the few outlets for new creative writing in the US (things are better now). And they do some very interesting and thought-provoking work. Lewis Lapham's columns were always enjoyable reading. On the other hand, I started to pick up a few warning signals over time.

They published an article on the treatment (or lack thereof) of hepatitis C in the US prison system, where it is fairly widespread. The gist was that the US prison system is shitty, which isn't exactly news. But the author was either ignorant of or uninterested in the realities of treating hepatitis C, even outside prison, insofar as those realities would have undercut The Message. I let that slide, but the Farber piece - which was basically a one-way ticket to Crazytown, published with a straight face - was the last straw. That piece clearly had not been fact-checked - at least not by anyone with a working college-level knowledge of biology and immunology. So then I didn't trust them anymore.

Occasionally I see Harper's at the newsstand, and the cover invitingly beckons... but I haven't read it since. Its literary criticism did tend toward the insular and pretentious, but a little bit of that is OK. It's almost charmingly anachronistic in today's world to be snobbish about the work of, say, Somerset Maugham, or even to know who he is.

I have to say I stopped watching Presidential press conferences after Bush left office - they lost the sense of surreal absurdity that made them so worthwhile. I remember when Bush explained the need to waterboard detainees by saying: "These are people who are trained to disassemble!" Apparently he was getting blank stares from the press corps, because he helpfully added: "That means not tell the truth." Or when Ari Fleischer issued "reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do" if they didn't want to get in trouble after 9/11. Those kind of things, that make you look at the person next to you to see if they really happened, are no longer a feature of Presidential press conferences. Although I've bet a friend that Gibbs will ask about Obama's birth certificate during the run-up to this November's elections... MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Farber should have realized that the only real solutions come from science. Like, y'know, this stuff (and another tip of the hat to Wonkette). The best WH news conference I've seen is the one created by Colbert. But then I've never seen "Jeff Gannon" at work. -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnbuses

Thanks. Did I spend that long? I thought I'd do a stub in an hour, but I got engrossed. I'm now emailing to see if I can get some free images to use, and it's in the DYK queue as well. But please don't make any more tempting suggestions too soon! Ty

Thanks for the corrections. This format "Retrieved 2010-08-14" happened automatically in Word without me knowing, when I put the text there for safekeeping at one stage, then copied and pasted it. Thanks again Microsoft. Something to watch. Ty 00:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. I thought it was me who put those in, for the Guardian material I'd just located online. It's a rather barbaric format but at least it's concise and in an order that's more sensible than that used by the inscrutable Americans. But then I noticed that elsewhere in your article you'd used another format, so I switched to that. ¶ As for Word, I use OpenOffice instead. It's hardly any better or worse, but at least I don't have to transfer any money to Microsoft in order to use it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Blind reversal in Brazil

Series of edits undoes most of the improving that has been made in Brazil (with the insertion of a blank line that made it very difficult to see what changes were actually done). I reverted to the last reliable version, and was immediately re-reverted, with this cute edit summary: (Reverting vandalism). Ninguém (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Surrender of Japan

I'm impressed. You're doing a very thorough job, and personally, I like the results. Good work! And thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding some of your comments: (via http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surrender_of_Japan&action=historysubmit&diff=380089042&oldid=379968244)

• 21 May 1945: Malik (Soviet ambassador to Tokyo) tells Tanakamura that the treaty continues in force.
  • Tanakamura was
• 24 June 1945: Malik tells Hirota that the Neutrality Pact ... will continue ... until it expires.
  • Hirota was

Hmmm. That's a worry; I know the names, but can't remember the positions.
I'll fill in the gaps tomorrow.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

By-the-way, you seem to be linking Sato, but not Malik or Molotov. Any particular reason for that? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm linking Satō because readers are likely to think "'Satō'? Who he?" (By contrast, I'm always unenthusiastic about links that are unlikely to appeal: At first, some refused to believe the Americans had built an atomic bomb.) There's no particular reason why I'm not linking Malik or Molotov; please go ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Pdfpdf (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hoary - the work you've been doing on the Surrender article is good, but something is bothering me. You have repeatedly tagged things as vague that could be trivially fixed with one or two google searches. The above paragraph, for example. It was a reference to Kōki Hirota. I didn't know that at first, but I figured it out with exactly 1 google search. Ditto this that I fixed earlier -- searching for that quote on Google Books produces exactly one hit, with a page number. Please spend a minute checking google before tagging the article. Raul654 (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, according to this, Tanakamura was a fishing fleet owner. Raul654 (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very deserved criticisms.

I'll explain the process. When I came across the article, after an interval of some months if not years, I was struck by the way it was curiously unidiomatic, as if revised by somebody for whom English was a near-perfect second language but one marked by at least one distinct oddity. (Adverb placement was strange.) I did a quick revision. As I did this, I became aware of minor content oddities: the full name and military position of one person would be repeated, the full name of another stated nowhere. So I printed out the whole thing and went through the result with a red pen while commuting to and from work a couple of times (and with no computer or other browsing device). I then transferred the red-penning to the article, while rather less awake and energetic than I'd been on the train. While doing this, I googled for oddities that particularly intrigued me and for those that benefited from an elementary ability in Japanese. I left the rest as "vague", "dubious" and so forth not from any assumption that they'd be particularly hard to fix, let alone any desire to leave the article littered with these carping flags, but because I inferred that the article was watched by enough energetic people for those flags to disappear quickly. Time and energy willing, I'd return to them myself.

Well, I hope that my involvement has been (or continues to be) a net positive. In the meantime, I regret the irritations I've caused. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy. Will try to fill in the gaps I left "real soon". Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your router issue

Okay, to sum it up:

1. Ask your techies for one static IP, and the corresponding network mask. If they ask "For what purpose?", tell them you need it for a network device, if they inquire further, say it is a manageable switch / access point. Do not let them in that it is a router (since we will not be using it as such anyways) - that might cause some unnecessary worries on their side.
2. Unplug the WAN cable from your router.
3. Plug a LAN cable between your Computer and your router
4. Access the configuration menu.
5. Note down the settings of the screen shown in chapter 4.5.2 - not the settings in the manual, mind you, but the ones displayed on your computer screen.
6. Verify that you copied them correctly and disable the DHCP server.
7. Only in case you lose connectivity to the router after that step, you will have to assign a fixed IP to your computer as a temporary measure. Pick an IP in the middle of the two IP addresses you copied from the DHCP screen, then access the router again.
8. Enter the new IP address and netmask that you received from your techies in the screen shown in chapter 4.5.1.
9. Tell the router to save all changes, if it doesn't do so automatically.
10. If you had to change the IP address of your computer in step 7, un-do these changes and set it back to DHCP.
11. Power down your computer.
12. Power down the router.
13. Plug your office ethernet cable into one of the LAN ports of your router.
14. Power up the router.
15. Wait until it has finished powering up.
16. Power up your computer.

Now you should be able to access the network via LAN cable as well as via wireless connection. To configure the router (say, if you want to change the wireless password, channel, or encryption setting), access http://ip.you.got.from.techsupport.here. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but, but, a fixed IP seems kind of daft, in that the IP number would go unused most of most working days. (It's not as if this were a web server or anything.)

Spot of bother here as (i) Okular refuses to display the Japanese text of the PDF (a problem I used to encounter often but that I haven't seen in years) and (ii) I've mislaid the power cable for my assistant's 100% Japanese Windows machine (which of course could display the PDF). I'll have to come in early tomorrow and look for the latter in the other office where I suppose I must have left it. (Or, come to think of it, I could install Acrobat Reader on my computer.) Till tomorrow! -- Hoary (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you need a static IP for the router when "abusing" it as a glorified switch/Access Point, because the router itself cannot act as a DHCP client on its LAN ports - so you would lose the ability to configure it. That means whenever you want to make a change (allow new clients on the wireless network, if you're using MAC-based authentication, or if you want to change the wireless password, etc.) you would have to unplug the router, perform a factory reset and repeat all the steps from above. Much easier to assign it a static IP. And yes, your router is in fact a web server as well - that's how it displays its config menu. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm now sitting -- and, past my bedtime, dozing off -- ten or so kilometres away from it so I can't check, but I think that the menu in the web page (so yes you're right it's a web server) said it comes with five or so IP numbers among which it or I can choose. It seems as if I can change this easily. I'm totally lost here: how am I (even in jokey quotes) "abusing" the thing? I thought that linking an ethernet cable to one or more computer, whether by wire or wirelessly, was what these things were designed to do. (We have something that looks vaguely similar here at home, and it does the job uncomplainingly. Though maybe our ISP gives us a fixed IP here; I wouldn't know.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, to clarify:

• A (non-wireless) router has a WAN port and one LAN port. It will act as a DHCP Client on the WAN port, and hand out private IP addresses with its DHCP Server on the LAN port. It acts as an intermediary between the upstream network device connected on the WAN port, and the downstream network devices connected on the LAN port. None of the upstream devices sees the IP addresses of the downstream devices (your computers) - upstream always believes your router is the only connected device and all the traffic is originating from it. (That, by the way, is probably the reason why you need to re-authenticate so often - the upstream device that asks for authentication gets confused because what it sees as one device - your router - is actually many devices hiding behind the single IP of your router.)
• An Access Point has one or more antennas, and one LAN port, but no WAN port. It is basically on the same level as all the other devices it connects to (by cable and wireless), so every other device sees the real IP address of the device it is "talking" to. It's kind of like a switch (see below), but with a management option to set a network name, encryption level, channel number, etc. - that's why it needs an IP of its own.
• A switch is basically an extension cord for networks - all the devices you plug into it "see" each other. It is a "dumb" device and does not care about IP addresses, DHCP or whatever.
• What you have is a combination of a router
  and a switch (the 4 LAN ports of your device are a switch - there's basically an imaginary fifth LAN port hidden inside the box that connects directly to the actual router's LAN port)
  and an access point (which plugs into an imaginary sixth LAN port) - a wireless router.
• What you need, to avoid the multiple login issue you are experiencing, is a simple access point - combined with a switch, if you want to plug in devices as well, rather than rely on wireless only.
• Since your wireless router can be dumbed down/"abused" as an access point/switch combination, buying new hardware is not necessary.
• By turning off the DHCP server on the wireless router, giving it a static IP from your current network's range, and plugging the office ethernet cable into a LAN port, leaving the WAN port unused, you're bypassing the actual router component, so it will act as an access point with the added benefit that you have a few LAN ports for wired connections, should you want to use them.

This is the inside of your router - the only parts you're seeing are the ones in (round brackets):

(WAN)--[actual router]--[router's LAN]==[LAN5]--[switch]--[LAN6]==[access point's LAN]--[access point]--(antenna)
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                             (LAN1)+
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                             (LAN2)+
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                             (LAN3)+
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                             (LAN4)+

And the way you should use it to avoid the multiple login issue is this:

                                                [switch]--[LAN6]==[access point's LAN]--[access point]--(antenna)
                                                   |
                                                   |
            office ethernet cable goes here==(LAN1)+
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                             (LAN2)+
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                             (LAN3)+
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                             (LAN4)+

If you would leave the DHCP server enabled (which you really should not do), what would happen is this:

       [actual router]--[router's LAN]==[LAN5]--[switch]--[LAN6]==[access point's LAN]--[access point]--(antenna)
                                                   |
                                                   |
            office ethernet cable goes here==(LAN1)+ Now the router's LAN is connected to the office LAN
                                                   | and it will fight with the office LAN's DHCP server - 
                                                   | serving DHCP addresses of its supposedly internal 
                                             (LAN2)+ network range to all the devices on the office LAN
                                                   | ==> Chaos ensues, as machines trying to renew their
                                                   | DHCP leases will randomly switch between your rogue
                                             (LAN3)+ DHCP server and the official one. 
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                             (LAN4)+

Both the actual router and the access point share the same management IP - the one you're using for the web interface. Since you want to be able to access the access point's management features even though you don't need the routing/DHCP component, you should assign a static IP in the web interface.

By the way, the reason why the router at home works "out of the box" isn't that your provider gave you a static IP (which may or may not be the case), it's because you're using the device in the way it is usually used - upstream goes in WAN, downstream goes in LAN. The WAN side of the actual router component supports several options of getting an IP (static, DHCP, PPPoE,...), while on the LAN side, only static IPs are supported for the router/AP management interface's IP.

--78.43.71.155 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and you can turn PDFs into pictures here: http://view.samurajdata.se/ - it takes a while, but it might still be less of a hassle than to install acrobat reader. Feed the URL http://corega.jp/prod/wlrgnxw/pdf/wlrgnx_detail_d.pdf into the field that says "WEB view". Pages 115 and 116 are the ones you should be looking at. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the help. I've noticed that I hardly need any signal amplification in my own room, in that the signal I get from my moderately local part of the LAN (outside my room, but presumably on the same or the adjacent floor) seems pretty strong. But there are still other irritations. I'm keeping your message and may reapply it all soon. -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to be in Japan or at least have quite some knowledge about it -- is it true that some Japanese companies hire Japanese servants for their higher-ranking, Japanese-born staff living abroad, so that these higher-ups don't have to deal with the locals? A friend told me that story once, but it sounds rather weird to me. Then again, I'm only a gaijin. (If you have no idea what this has to do with your original question, that's OK, just bear with me and answer - I'll explain afterwards.) -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anyone ranked so highly in a Japanese company. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this were true. But I've heard second-hand accounts of how a small and depressing minority among Japanese wives of men posted abroad -- and remember, Japan is an intensely sexist society; I am talking about women tagging along with the men -- are or gamely pretend to be happy to live abroad but refuse to learn more of the local language (or a lingua franca) than is needed to buy things at a supermarket. Certainly a lot (but not all!) of Japanese university entrants arrive from years in nations whose languages they don't speak at all: life seems to have been linguistically divided into Japanese at home and English at school; and the natives seem largely to have been viewed through car windows during the daily commute. -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's the reason why I asked:

Let's assume this story is true, then there's a parallel to your router issue.

Imagine we have Mr. Takahashi and Mr. Watanabe as company big-wigs. They stand for your and your co-worker's computer. The problem for these guys is, they don't speak English, and while high-ranking enough for a personal assistant, they're not high-ranking enough to have one for each, they have to share Mr. Yamaguchi (your router).

The next problem: While Mr. Yamaguchi speaks both English and Japanese, he isn't exactly the brightest bulb in the chandelier and sometimes takes tasks too literally.

• What happens now is that Mr. Takahashi sends Mr. Yamaguchi off to another company to pick up some papers for him, and tells him the "magic word" he needs to enter that building. Instead of acting on Mr. Takahashi's behalf, though, Mr. Yamaguchi *pretends* to be Mr. Takahashi when asked for identification by the company's security staff at the door (the security staff being just as daft as Mr. Yamaguchi, they'll wave him through after hearing the magic word and noting down the name "Takahashi" next to it). He retrieves the papers and returns them to Mr. Takahashi.
• Five minutes later, Mr. Watanabe sends Mr. Yamaguchi to fetch his copy of the papers from the same company. Now, Mr. Yamaguchi tries to get through the doors, and presents himself as Mr. Watanabe. Now, security doesn't have Mr. Watanabe's magic word on record, so they ask for it (that's the password dialog that pops up). Seeing that magic word on their list, they cancel out Mr. Takahashi's name behind it, replace it with "Mr. Watanabe", and let Mr. Yamaguchi pass, under the assumption that he is Mr. Watanabe. (And they'll probably think to themselves: "Gee, these Japanese sure do look all alike!")
• Now Mr. Takahashi has signed his stack of papers and wants Mr. Yamaguchi to take them back to the company, and the game starts from the beginning - the magic word is associated with Mr. Watanabe instead of Mr. Takahashi, so security asks for the magic word again, replaces the name in their list, etc.

See, networking is fun. :-D

-- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

MOS:JA

I'm petitioning to modify the Japanese manual of style to allow the use of tildes/wavedashes/dashes as a method of separating the subtitle from the title of music/other media. Seeing as you were the user who originally put this aspect of the MOS in place, I'd like to get your input at WT:MOS-JA as to why you originally suggested that the tildes et al. should not be used.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Username

It is rare to see the word "hoary" in print; but I did stumble across it here in an article about the Richard Lane collection at the Honolulu Academy of Arts:

"The Academy’s bold purchase of the Lane Collection offers an irresistible illustration of how knowledge plus instinct plus vision can sometimes equal extreme good fortune. (It also demonstrates the hoary but ever-relevant maxim that one expert’s trash—or garbage or junk—may be another’s dazzling treasure.)"

Is the use of this word as uncommon as I think it is? --Tenmei (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Its typical use these days seems to be mildly pejorative: a hoary joke (one we've heard far too often), a hoary myth (one conclusively debunked long ago), etc. But from Zuleika Dobson alone:

• William, the hoary bargee, was pushing them off with his boat-hook, wishing them luck with deferential familiarity.
• [Floating far above it,] I saw Oxford as a place that had no more past and no more future than a mining-camp. I smiled down. O hoary and unassailable mushroom!

It hardly seems rare. Anyway, if the meaning doesn't apply to me, then it eventually will -- unless of course my hair falls out or I die prematurely. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think of it as describing something (either physically or more intangibly) as bumpy and rough, like a frog, which would probably go with the bargee quote ;) . I wonder what OED says. — e. ripley\^talk 13:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

U Tokyo, Keio U, and academic boosterism

ask User:ScorchingPheonix --Wikipedian05 (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism and I have not removed the matelials from the article, just removed them from the lead.--Wikipedian05 (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism is an essay, not a policy (I happen to agree with it, but still). Colincbn (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't previously encountered it. I strongly agree with it too. I was struck by the way in which Wikipedian05 appeared to have such different approaches to two universities. Incidentally, "OR" tells me that there's plenty of both excellence and mediocrity at both universities, and indeed at most Japanese universities. Perhaps particular gakubu (conventionally translated as "faculties") can be ranked meaningfully, but even within each of these you often have a great range among the zemi (itself a curious Japanese tradition) and so forth. -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course while I agree with it very much I don't think it is appropriate to use essays as a rational for controversial actions, or any action that might meet resistance for that matter. In almost all cases there are policies that the essay is based on that can be called upon instead. I also think there should be a standardization of how rankings are represented. I have noticed in many of the FA class articles on universities that using info-boxes with no text other than the rank and the ranking organization is the preferred method. This seems like it leads to a more neutral presentation of the situation. Colincbn (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That would indeed appear to be one of the few merits of an "infobox". ¶ Rankings and infoboxes aside, any thoughts on lists of famous alumni? -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation for Ugg boots

I've submitted the article for formal mediation here and I've named Gnangarra, Factchk, Bilby, Hoary and myself as the main participants. Others are also welcome to participate. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up

Hi Hoary,

since you haven't added a new comment on your router issue in quite a while, I will stop monitoring your talk page, and assume the problem has been resolved. Since my IP is dynamic (it seems to have a rather long lease time, though), I cannot guarantee that you will be able to reach me via this IP's talk page. Please leave a new message on WP:RD/C should you require further assistance. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; in case you've already changed IP number, I'll point out that I've replied at User talk:78.43.71.155. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Just a quick note to let you know that an issue involving you has come up at ANI. —DoRD (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Romaji for letters

Do you think it is pertinent to provide the Japanese pronunciations for letters of the English alphabet as they appear in the titles of (what is in this case) video games and their systems? I had backed down from arguing with Odokee over this matter after the last ANI thread that I had started because of the opposition to this concept that I had been receiving from the uninvolved editors. In short, should Nintendo DSi have in the romanization portion "Nintendō DSi" (the version I self reverted to) or "Nintendō Dī Esu Ai"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Similar pages: [1], [2], [3], [4].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mm, I understand the question, but frankly it's something I can't get excited about. If one did do that, then presumably the same logic would require the "spelling out" of numbers: "Nintendo 19", if it existed, would require "Nintendō Jūkyū"; rather a bore for editor and reader, I think. You may with to bring it up at the talk page of WikiProject Japan. -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Super Mario 64's "64" is "Rokujūyon" in Japan.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Do you want to have the article say that? (I wouldn't be against the idea, but I can't summon any enthusiasm for it.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't quite get it. Also he's removed it on another page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

sourcing "Afro-Brazilian"

As (legitimately) suggested by you here in "Talk:Afro-Brazilian", Ninguém sourced most or all of the claims that this or that person named in Afro-Brazilian was "black". While I don't claim that he did this as well as anyone might hope, this work by him strikes me as well-intentioned and solid -- and I imagine that it took him a considerable time. On 18 September, you reacted to it with the comment:

these links are more like spam than worthwhile supporting WP:RS for a cited claim of colour and ethnic ancestry

I suppose that this struck him as surprisingly dismissive. (It certainly struck me that way.) He responded:

So which of those authors are spammers, exactly?

I wrote a longer reply on this and also on your comments on the desirability of English sources or translations.

You haven't replied, even though your list of contributions shows that you have found time to edit many other articles. Please return to that talk page and respond there. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually he ignored my protestations and my issues with the sourcing and just stuffed the whole load of what to me looked like weakly claimed color identification back in the article, I took that to be the ignoring of my issues and I removed it off my watchlist so as not to get into a war with him, thanks. As we both know there are multiple issues at the Brazilian race articles that have been continuing for over almost a year now. Ethnicity and color claims of identity have clear BLP issues and would need high quality sourcing, which I did not see, anyways, there is some lengthy committed editing there and I will not be drawn into a war over such issues. I removed it when I saw it as I am required to do as an editor, it was replaced, imo with weak claims, excuse me if that is all the energy I have to resist it. Off2riorob (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that every one of these articles (Italian Brazilians, etc etc) starts off with a miniaturized gallery of headshots at the top right. What do you think about these? -- Hoary (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I perhaps wrongly assumed that they would be cited or at least are the strongest most notable people in the genetic or colored group so I did not at the time touch the info boxes, surely they must be cited in the infobox?. I simply was attracted to the large uncited section and moved that to the talkpage. If you provide the links and I look at them and they are weakly cited or opinionated or uncited claims about people identifying them through their colour or weak claims of ethnicity , especially living people I will likely remove them. . Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The article provides links. At 22:49, 18 September 2010, you wrote imo these links are more like spam than worthwhile supporting WP:RS for a cited claim of colour and ethnic ancestry. You were describing links that you saw. So which links are more like spam than they are like reliable sources? And (in your latest comment) what do you mean by links being uncited claims? -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am looking for strong reliable citations to support claims of identification of living people by color I did not see it at all. The edits were replaced without care for my concerns, that is enough for me, there has been disruption at all the Brazilian race related articles involving the same users, I got involved once and I am not prepared to get involved again thanks. It will work itself out soon enough. Actually, your comments here and your involvement make me appreciate your comment that you have taken a step back in this area and will no longer use your Administrative weight. Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But you chose to reinvolve yourself. The claims are sourced to what are footnotes 79 through 108 of the current version. A large number of them cite this or that specific page within a book titled Enciclopédia brasileira da diáspora africana. Now, is this book insufficiently authoritative for you? If it's OK, then which of the other notes cites something that is not reliable? And which of these is spammy? ¶ You bring up the matter of my involvement. As I see it, my involvement in these articles (on subjects of no interest to me) is to help nudge them in the direction of quality, and fend off attempts to degrade them. This particular article is a mess, I freely admit. You made additional charges against it that surprised me. One was of spamminess. You still have neither explained what you meant by this nor retracted the charge. -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As for your claim that you are helping to nudge them in a direction of quality imo looking at the articles that is not reflected in the article and their stability, a good article is a stable article because both sides are represented in the content you are clearly on one side of the editing situation and friendly with that side and so are clearly involved. I simply removed an uncited section and disputed the quality of the citations presented to claim some of the living people are notable because they are black, such notability as regards color claims especially in living people are highly POV and problematic, my concerns were rejected and the content was inserted. Spamming would likely refer to the mass sourcing of a single book of limited notability and authoritativeness itself in another language to claim color notability to living individuals, we have lists or book reviews for that, weakly cited claims of color as a notable factor as regards a living person require the strongest possible citations which this clearly was not. For a simple example of what you are supporting here, Jonny is a notable Black Englishman (add a weak supporting citation here) Off2riorob (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced list of "important or famous Black Brazilians" immediately before you removed it. Sourced list of the same, immediately after it was re-added. They're different: the one had no sources, the other has sources. The sources may be inadequate; this can be discussed. You say: Spamming would likely refer to the mass sourcing of a single book of limited notability and authoritativeness itself in another language to claim color notability to living individuals[...] Spamming was your term; presumably you know what you meant by it. I have never encountered the meaning of the word extended as you have extended it here. (Or do you mean that the multiple citations from it constituted an effort to raise its profile and thus its sales?) You say that the book is of limited notability and authoritativeness itself in another language. That it's in another language is not an issue. That it is of limited notability is not an issue: virtually every academic book (let alone all the other crap) is of limited notability. If it's of limited authoritativeness this would indeed be an issue. Please elaborate. ¶ You say that I am on one side of the editing situation. Recently I have broadly been in favor of what one writer has been explaining on the talk page. Maybe that's one "side". If so, I don't know what the other side is. Can you point me to a lucid exposition by that "side"? ¶ If you have some complaint about my editing, feel free to reopen the discussion on me that is, or very recently was, at WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why should I bother to discuss it after it was stuffed back in without any care for my good faith objections, cite this for me.. Djavan is a notable black Brazilian. I have said my piece and I am responsible for that alone, others are responsible for their edits and additions. Is that your issue that you claim you are not involved, you commented as such yourself that you have not used your tools for that reason and I support your comment, you are involved with one group and support one position, whats the problem with that? To be honest I find your discussion of this issue pointy indeed and it is going no where, I have commented thats it,. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to the non-sourcing of the claim for Djavan. Please see what I've written and done about this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Ugg boots, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

GNAA DRV incident

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Thanks for your help with Foulball (block log · checkuser^confirmed_suspected) and his spamish articles that are cited on his confirmed category. --Wolfnix • Talk • 02:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to say "It's a pleasure", but that wouldn't be true. It's a bore. But only a minor one. I'm glad to be of help. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dilma Rousseff

Hi, Hoary. I am having a small problem in Dilma Rousseff. She is at this moment a candidate in Brazilian presidential elections. In the 1960s and 1970s she was part of a communist group financed by Cuba and the defunct Soviet Union which had as goal the creation of a communist dictatorship. Obviously, that does not mean that she wants that nowadays, in 2010. There is an IP (174.91.175.10) who has as sole purpose the goal of removing that piece of information from her article. He has complained about in the talk page (See Talk:Dilma Rousseff#Revolutionary Dictatorship) and did not bother to bring one single source at all to explain why it should be removed. In other words: he is removing that sourced information ([5]) without sources to back his claim. I've reverted once [6] and he reverted it [7]. I will not revert it a second time and even less a third time. Is there something you could do about it? I am too busy with two articles which I nominated for featured status (Pedro II of Brazil and Pedro Álvares Cabral) and I don't want to lose my time discussing with an unknown IP. Thanks, --Lecen (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't get involved in this one: I'll simply be too busy in the next three days or so to pay attention to WP. But see this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, anyway. I mean it. But it seems that this article will become a new Hugo Chávez. --Lecen (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Eletrobras

Hi Hoary

Could you please delete this redirect Eletrobras to open place for move, it redirects the page to the article Eletrobrás (with diacritic), but Portuguese acronym does not have diacritics, and also, in its official website it's written without the diacritic, but I can't move because a bot inserted a template there. Thank you.--Luizdl (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Done! However, I haven't even started to reduce this long list. Sorry, no time. -- Hoary (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Luizdl (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Mirror image of a picture

Hello Hoary, I was wondering if you could help me out. I need to get a mirror image of a painting I have found of the old Luxembourg fortifications. It's this one. As you can see, it's a beautiful picture but the version I found happens to be the wrong way round. I have seen authentic copies of the original in several art and history books and this one is definitely wrong. The bridge should be on the left hand side. Perhaps with all your photographic expertise you could fix it yourself and upload the result onto Commons for me. Or if not, perhaps you could direct me to some tool that will do the job. It's quite important as I have used it as the lead image on Bock (Luxembourg). Hope you can help. Cheers. - Ipigott (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked at the image but glancing at what you say suggests that this will be a doddle. However, no time right now even for doddles. I'll attend to it within 24 hours. -- Hoary (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It took rather over 24 hours to finish the work, return home, and catch up on sleep; but I did it. Here's what you'd have to do:

1. Install Gimp.

I'll assume that you're using either Windows or Linux. If you're using Mac OS X there'd be minor changes to the following:

2. Right-click on the filename and elect to open it with Gimp.

3. Alt-i t h Ctrl-s

Done!

Twenty-eight hours rather than 24, sorry. Of course I knew that this would take mere seconds, but I didn't want to be bothered to go through the rigmarole of answering the questions needed to upload it. However, that turned out to be a lot less arduous than I had misremembered.

Gimp is an excellent program. Its interface takes a bit of getting used to, but Gimp (free) plus a book about it seems to me a better value than Photoshop or similar, and then adding Gimp to any other computer (just about any computer made this century) will cost you nothing extra. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Domo arigato. Great tool. I knew you would come up with something. - Ipigott (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems

As you may have noticed, I've started to do a bit more on Danish photographers. I think I have run into probems with the photographs of Benedicte Wrensted I've loaded up on Commons here. When I loaded them up, I used the "author died more than 70 yrs ago" licence but now I realise that as she died in 1949, that condition does not yet apply. I suppose that at least the first two (taken in Denmark) should therefore be removed. And I now have doubts about the third one too. Even though it was taken in the States in 1898, it was probably never "published" and therefore might not be outside copyright restrictions. Would you therefore be kind enough to remove all three of them - unless I have misunderstood the rules. - Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I can't: I'm not an administrator there (and indeed am only the most desultory of contributors). This, perhaps? -- Hoary (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gurudom.3F

Thank you, Hoary, very much, for your kind words regarding my response to an issue at BLPN. Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

As you were involved i this issue, I am notifying you of this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 15#Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Darin Fidika. Please participate if you wish. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

CURRENTMONTHNAME

Yes thanks, known bug. Caused by a MediaWiki bug. Corrected normally by SmackBot on the fly but since SmackBot is under interdiction for changing {{silicate-mineral-stub}} to {{Silicate-mineral-stub}} needs me to clean up after manually. Rich Farmbrough, 11:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

Robert Whitaker

Hi Hoary - just had a look back at the Bob Whitaker article and I like your suggestion. I think it's an important photo, culturally, so I'd hate to see all that material just deleted, but I agree the broader discussion of the photo's own 'career' isn't all that relevant to Bob's actual life and career, so yeah, I think that would be great. Thanks.

Dunks (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Baker

Hi. Thanks for the fix at Baker's article.

Tangentially: I'd forgotten how he arrived on my watchlist; so after following the talkpage explanation, I had the chance to review my handful of interactions with him at User talk:Wageless. Ha! This is still one of my favourite edits. We need more of that around here. :)

Best, -- Quiddity (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Colegrove

There have been crazy things going on here that have become epic to say the least. I can't tell from where things are comming from but it's everything, copyright, harrassment, stalking who knows what else. I don't think WP will suffer any blow back but I and a few others sure have.

Even though this is not my real name I was even contacted by my old boss and reminded that I had signed papers to keep me quiet a few years back!

Is there anything I can do to extract myself from WP?Myraedison (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The article has been deleted so all should be well. But if you notice any more silliness, do please let me know. -- Hoary (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say it went far beyond silliness. One of the sites used as a reference for Daniel Colegrove stored pages and documents for many other buried journalism stories. They began getting threats of all kinds from every direction so rather than deal with it they packed up and left the Internet. Not good, they were a valuable resource for some things and may have been referenced here a lot. Myraedison (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Which site was this? -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OEP's website digitalphotojournalist.org, when they started to get blow back from this controversy they packed up their stuff published on the internet and split. The site was just a few pages (they got cagey about things in like 2004 or 5) but there were hundreds of scans, images and other documents behind it in non indexed files on the server, you had to email them to get the linksMyraedison (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

digitalphotojournalist.org is listed as an external link at the foot of Photo manipulation, 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies, Photojournalism, and News propaganda. I don't notice any references to the site within Wikipedia (although I may be looking for these in the wrong way). What am I missing? ¶ The deleted article on Colegrove contained this obscure footnote:

http://digitalphotojournalist.org/articles/article21-dcolegrove.html 3rd paragraph republished from Professional Photographer.

That page remains available, here. It ends:

Article copyright © 1999 Professional Photographer - Republished Edited version (names removed due to subjects [sic] request) with permission 2005 DigitalPhotojournalist.org.

"Edited" here seems to mean "mangled": the prose is curiously tortured. Although the footnote was used to source the claim that Colegrove was

Established in the industry with his early use of photojournalism techniques in wedding photography, striking editorial and commercial portraits, and his pioneering use of alternative lighting techniques in forensic photography

this article says little about any of this. However, it does include this interesting passage:

" I couldn't say Daniel is a type A personality" says print Journalist Myra Edison "But don't think he ever slept between 1980 and 1994" Mrs. Edison who was doing background research for an editorial project stumbled into much of Colegrove's early work along with documentation of the copyright sale and subsequent crediting of his work to other photographers. " I thought it was not only a travesty but a fraud, this photographer's work is even still being published and used by -others-. It wasn't just the images, the bravery involved in shooting them was almost shocking "

(sprinkle [sic] to taste), it doesn't say anything about where "print Journalist Myra Edison" was writing, what the "editorial project" was, which wars these were, etc. Perhaps this will make more sense in the original 1999 article for Professional Photographer (whether website or magazine) or in the completed editorial project toward which Mrs Edison was contributing. ¶ Incidentally, this digitalphotojournalist.org site looks increasingly odd as I continue to look at it. Here is its top page. Its content has a remarkable resemblance to the content of Wikipedia's own Photojournalism. Web.archive.org's history of backups of digitalphotojournalist.org suggests that it was preceded by the relevant passages within Wikipedia's "Photojournalism". Yet it says (in 2008):

Copyright © 2000 - 2007 All Rights Reserved digitalphotojournalist.org

Now, if you have evidence that digitalphotojournalist.org wrote this before Wikipedia did, then this would suggest Wikipedia had broken the rights reserved by this defunct website, and we'd have to flush out any copyright violation here. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Indian photography

I feel we should leave the categories as such for now.Creating new sub categories may be case of over categorisation. We should wait for some months before revising this . However if you feel strongly please go ahead.Thanks Shyamsunder (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well . . . OK. (Meanwhile, isn't it odd that there are fewer people in Category:Indian photographers than in Category:Photographers from New York?) -- Hoary (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That IP you warned

Regarding this warning you left for the IP who's been commenting at Talk:James Randi, if I'm not mistaken he was altering his own comments, which I believe he's allowed to do. I changed it back to his altered version. Please feel to double check to make sure I got it right. Histories can be confusing that way. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

But here's one of the edits, in which he's fiddling with something attributed to Chaoticfluffy. -- Hoary (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Chris Mosdell page

Hi Hoary - looks like a lot of changes have occurred recently on the Chris Mosdell page, some very good, and some clearly requiring better references. I'll be happy to make those additions. One concern to me is the disappearance of the wiki entry for the documentary film about Mosdell (Ink Music: In the Land of the Hundred-Tongued Lyricist) as well as all of its associated links to the various artists involved in the film. How can this entry be recovered? And any knowledge why it was deleted in the first place? Thanks for your help. Bkce23 (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Well, you're not going to like this news, but the article on Ink Music was deleted as the result of an "AfD" process, and not only that, but one started by me. Yes, I nominated it for deletion, and after nominating it I returned to criticize it in other ways after one other user had questioned what I wrote. Two other people also said it should be deleted, and nobody said that it should be kept. You can read the discussion here.

If, having read what's there, you believe that Ink Music is notable, that an appropriate article (one meeting WP's standards) can be produced on it, and that production would benefit from access to the older version, then just say the word and I'll copy what's been deleted to User:Bkce23/Sandbox, User:Bkce23/Ink Music, or indeed [[User:Bkce23/[you_name_it]]], where you can work on it. When the result is worthy and sound you appeal at "WP:DRV" for its restoration as a regular article.

When you write above of all of its associated links to the various artists involved in the film, I don't understand you. Perhaps you mean, or anyway perhaps you are wondering about, all the links to the article on it from the articles about various other people involved in the film. Well, removing the links to the article on the film was an obvious matter. However, I -- and yes, again it was me -- went beyond this and removed the mentions of the film as well. Why? I quote myself in the AfD:

I had never heard of this film (or its subject) until I noticed its prominence in the article Shuntarō Tanikawa. I then found that it was similarly prominent in the articles on Kazuhiko Kato (musician), Sadistic Mika Band, Juichi Yoshikawa, Michiyo Yagi, Yukihiro Takahashi, Maaya Sakamoto, Yoko Kanno, Yellow Magic Orchestra, and Ryuichi Sakamoto. Considering that the film has never been available to the public and that there's no suggestion that it soon will be, the prominence was very surprising. (And if the film did emerge and these people appeared in it, even this would hardly be remarkable.) The write-ups may have been done with the noblest of intentions but they came off as spam, and I therefore deleted them.

What I write there about the unavailability of the film may be too simple or plain wrong. (User:MichaelQSchmidt questioned it.) However, even if the film is already available (e.g. by download), it's not clear why it merits a sentence or paragraph within the article on each of seven people who appear in it.

Though I happen not to have heard of Mosdell before arriving at his WP article (via that on Tanikawa), he seems a remarkable person who merits an informative and dispassionate article (and, if possible, one that's interesting and even attractive). Please don't infer from my many (and generally deflationary) edits to the article on him any kind of animus.

(A similar but more extreme example: I'm now interested in one person who describes his recent activities as "digital storytelling". I'd never previously heard of this term, but last night found that it had its own article here. I thereupon took my editorial machete scalpel to that too. I'd like to think that it's more likely now than 24 hours ago to evolve into the kind of article that the subject deserves.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sibylle Bergemann

OK, I've put together a short piece on her. I was surprised to find there was no mention of her anywhere in the English WP. Perhaps you can drop her name into one or two relevant artciles. - Ipigott (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Unfortunately I can see only one obviously relevant article, and it's a mere stub. However, I've edited the article in the direction of austerity, which is how I interpret WP policy. (Actually I believe that all your modifiers, such as "successful", were justified; but unless they are "sourced" [yawn], it can be hard to draw a line between (a) them and (b) all the "prestigious", "iconic", "legendary" and so forth in fan-gushy articles by others.) And I made a few other tweaks. There's more to be done, but my total incompetence in German means that I may not be capable of doing it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Entitled/titled

Hi. Nice tidy-up on Ian Fleming. Can I just ask you one thing please? I see that you changed "entitled" to "titled" - do you have a strong feeling that "entitled" is wrong? To me "titled" sounds wrong, but it could just be my higgerance and lack of education showing. Can you please clarify? NB - this really is a genuine enquiry, not a fishing trip or an attempt to start a flame war! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm - I checked my Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors - my near-Bible! - and it was strangely silent on the matter. Here and here, though, are entries which seem to support my vague feelings about it. This isn't an AmE/BrE thing is it??? Interesting! Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Without actually bothering to look in any dictionary (let alone style guide), I'd say offhand that "entitle" as a verb either has irrelevant meanings ("your achievement entitles you to promotion", etc) or is a slightly grandiose alternative to "title". Vladimir Nabokov wrote a short piece "On a book entitled Lolita" (if I remember correctly); and thus "entitle" is fine; if you prefer it, feel free to revert me. -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks. On the "offhand" side I'd say that "titled" sounds to me like the aristocracy: Lord Hoary, 7th Baron Wikipedia, kind of thing. That seems to be what the second Oxford reference is suggesting. I am very disappointed that you don't want a massive flame war and then to come round and punch me in the face, but I'll get over it ... no, actually I've put out a couple of other feelers about this as I find it quite interesting. I won't revert you unless I can convince myself I'm right, which is not the case right now. And even if I do revert you, I will do it so subtly and with a generous dose of local anaesthetic so with luck you won't feel a thing! Cheers, DBaK (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks very much for your patience over this. I checked with an American linguistics academic who lives and works in the UK and who writes this brilliant blog: http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.com/ - she tells me that it's "entitled" for books in the UK and that "titled" here only means that you are a duke or whatever, whereas in the US it can, as you say, be either so it's a matter of personal choice. Given that, and that it's a BrE subject, I will - as you kindly suggested - change it back to "entitled". Thanks again - it's been very interesting! With all good wishes, DBaK (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for bringing that AFD information to my attention. Thanks again! :) Endofskull (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion of Nbaka is no joke

Nbaka is no a joke is attempting block evasion, but a SPI admin believes no conditions apply to creation of Basil Rock.[8] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm watching this discussion at AN/I with interest but right now have nothing to add to it. -- Hoary (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Marvellous

If I were the type to jump on other people's bandwagons I would award you Raul's brick of common sense for this comment: [9]. Reality-based community. Oh yes, we could do with some more of that alright. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Marianne Majerus

So now I've started looking at "Luxembourgian" photographers and was surprised to see that although you once had a look at this article, you let most of the bragging go by. Don't you think some of the superlatives should be edited out? And how about adding your advertising tag, not to mention the quality of her self portrait??? I'll leave it to you. - Ipigott (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've long viewed this article with considerable suspicion. But I have never brought myself even to start to investigate the world of "garden photography". (As it is, the writer(s) of the article could justifiably claim that I haven't a clue about the subject area of which I speak.) The article has been on my watchlist, so if anyone were to object to the claims made within it I'd notice and then perhaps investigate. ¶ As you've no doubt realized, any serious attempt to eliminate bragging from all en:WP articles on photographers would require an army of articlepolicepersons. Minihagiographies of the apparently unremarkable pop up like mushrooms -- but most confusingly, some of these people turn out to be remarkable after all, just written up incompetently. -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are being too kind. You don't have to be an expert on garden photography to detect all the hype. In addition, the article bears an uncanny resemblence to MM's website. And she's pushing all those who belong to her enterprise: Andrew Lawson, Steven Gunther, Fiona McLeod, Bennet Smith, Simon Meaker and Claire Takacs, although not one of them is yet in Wikipedia. I agree with you btw that Majerus deserves an article. But it should be based on third party sources rather than her own. She does appear in the Luxemburger Lexikon. I've made a few adjustments to the article myself. - Ipigott (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've gone in there and made some changes myself. You're right, though: it needs more. In time, in time. Incidentally, if you enjoy taking out junk, try your hand at the article on one Franz Lidz. (And don't miss its exciting talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC) .... Ummm -- Hoary (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

76.24.193.240

Re.: 76.24.193.240. Can you review this account and re-block? All this person has done for a year has been sophomoric vandalism. Thanks GenQuest (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC) ThanX. GenQuest (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Gabriel Lippmann

In my current work on Luxembourg photography, I frequently come across Nobel prize-winner Gabriel Lippmann (born in Luxembourg but considered to be just as French as Luxembourgish) who invented what is now known as the Lippmann plate, one of the most important inventions in the early days of colour photography. Am I right in thinking that Lippmann should come firmly within the coverage of WikiProject History of photography? If so, I think we should make a real effort to improve the article, perhaps aiming for a GA. Maybe you know members of the project who have the right kind of background here. If not, I could always have a go myself. There are plenty of excellent sources. - Ipigott (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"WP HoP" is pretty much moribund. (Its baggage therefore goes unused. However, I think that some of the baggage could be useful, and therefore continue to attach its templates to the talk pages of relevant articles, etc, in the hope that a wave of enthusiasts for [the history of] photography might miraculously arrive at en:WP some time and do something with the baggage.) Yes of course Lippmann is an important part of the history of photography. However, my own knowledge of this kind of thing is very weak indeed. I don't think that this matters so much, because of course I'd anyway need sources and can read English about as well as the man on the Clapham omnibus. What might matter is that I have only the sketchiest understanding of chemistry and so might well perpetrate the most horrendous gaffes. ¶ The person I'd try to interest is Dicklyon. It isn't really his subject either, but it's so close that it should interest him. Note that his user and user talk pages start by alluding to a year-long break. His list of contributions makes it obvious that in reality he's on no break but rather a fit of enthusiasm, but he may yet be telling himself that he is, or ought to be, on a long break; so I'd hesitate to ask "Hey Dick, let's take this to a GA!" Instead, just work on it and draw his attention to it. ¶ As for my own attention (for what that would be worth), I'll look at it but only after I've attended to some requirements of "real life". -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Dicklyon certainly seems to have the right kind of expertise and the right interests. His year off is nearly over and so he should be back on board in January. Perhaps I'll wait until then. I'll see how things go. As for the moribund state of HoP, it's my impression that most of the WikiProjects seem to be in a pretty sorry state. Nevertheless, from time to time interesting new people turn up and you never know when a really good new article might appear out of the blue. - Ipigott (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

HoP is different in that it's been in a pretty sorry state since its outset. It never managed to create a good article, let alone an FA: the closest were a couple of FAs that were 95% the work of one "member" and 2% the work of another (me); but that cooperation would have taken place without HoP. (Indeed, it may well have preceded HoP, but I can't be bothered to check.) ¶ As his list of contributions will show, Dicklyon is very much "on board" -- but perhaps he prefers to think otherwise. ¶ Luxembourg keeps itself both (a) out of the news and (b) rich. Or so it seems. If Luxembourg really is as rich as it looks at first glance, I wonder if it might simply buy one or more of Greece, Iceland and Ireland. -- Hoary (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

PS I've taken a first look. Even the footnotes make little sense; I spent quite a few minutes sorting out just two of them. I noticed that Dicklyon had already made some edits to the article, though I didn't investigate what these were. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Q from Jimlue

Hoary: 1st & foremost, thanks a-much for your hyper-intelligent tweaks to the Boston Camera Club article.

I've posted some discussion on its Talk page, the gist of which says, one, I am still deeply occluded as to know where the, or a, centralized discussion/thread about this, or any, article takes place. I know you commented on my 'My talk' page (itself confusing: why there? Why not on the article's Talk page?) and I know you instruct me to reply there, but I mistrust how that will get pushed to *you*. Hence, begging your indulgence, could you take a look at what I posted on Boston CC:Talk?

Secondly, it has a couple of Q's about your tweaks.

Thanks again. I'm sure we'll be in touch. Photo history seems to be undergoing something of a Grosses Bang on der Wiki, ja? Thanks in part to you, no doubt? Jimlue (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I've now dealt with much of this in Talk:Boston Camera Club. As for the last part, I wish it were true; but I fear that photographic history is patchy and poor here. What it really needs is an influx of a couple of hundred well-informed, scrupulous and energetic people; but failing that, just one or two more of such people would be most welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Photography in Denmark

Congratulations on getting this through. Unfortunately it's sorted under P. I'm not too sure how to sort categories - so perhaps you can help. I suppose I can now also create Category:Photography in Luxembourg without any trouble. - Ipigott (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Fait accompli. Incidentally, note also Category:Photography in Romania, with its admirable Luxembourgeois representation. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you had been adding Romania to the cats for the articles. I hope soon to embark on an article about Photography in Luxembourg but I am busy with all kinds of things outside the world of Wikipedia at the moment. - Ipigott (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

I wasn't aware that teh pr0nz had its own delsort category, thanks. pablo 13:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't blame you. I vaguely thought it did have one, but just a few hours ago when I went looking for it in order to dump some other pr0nographer there I couldn't find it and instead had to stick him in "sexuality and gender", but later the tireless Gene93k came along and stuck him amid the pr0n. -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Lips Tullian

Hello Hoary. I hope you are well. I created this article in a moment of sudden inspiration (there is a little association with photography - author is the brother of a very well known Czech photographer, but the topic is completely different). The author and his works are unknown outside of my country (the refs are only in Czech), but in the Czech Republic he is considered a legend (his large and excellent monography was sold out in one week!) Would you mind to look at it and check the grammar and fluency of my English? No problem if you are not interested - I'm just asking and I don't want to bother you ... But I think you might be interested. Feel free to ask whatever. Thanks. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, with pleasure! And now he/it deserves an article in Czech. And in Slovak. And Croatian. And -- well, for inspiration, see the "Languages" part of this otherwise uninteresting article. -- Hoary (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Uh, the True Jesus Church had to employ an army of translators to spread its truths! --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Trunk Archive

I am writing on behalf of Trunk Archive.

We represent photographers, and have been trying to broaden Wikipedia's information to include us on the pages of our photographers, and to be able to list the photographers we represent on our Wikipedia page. Originally, my boss hired some interns who did not know what they were doing. It is part of my job to clean up their mess. Having multiple interns is one reason why there were so many different accounts editing Wikipedia. Going forward, we want to clean up Wikipedia:Trunk Archive, and untangle the whole situation. I respect your efforts to make Wikipedia an honest place, and Trunk Archive does not want to impede the efforts of Wikipedians of that goal, and we do not want to be tarnished because of mistakes that were made in the past.

I have been extensively reading Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest and I understand that Wikipedians are strongly discouraged from editing articles related to themselves or their organization. I respect Wikipedia's mission, and would not want to contribute anything to Wikipedia that I did not feel was worthy of being a part of this center of public knowledge, that was biased, self-promoting, and not generally useful information.

I would really appreciate if you would engage in a discussion with me about why Trunk Archive is different from Wikipedia:Getty Images, Inc. or Wikipedia:Corbis Corporation. Internationally we are known for our photographers and the high caliber of work we represent. We have a roster that is impressive, and include Wikipedia:Philip-Lorca diCorcia, Wikipedia:Bruce Weber, and Wikipedia:Inez van Lamsweerde and Vinoodh Matadin among many others. Our work is published in publications around the world, including Wikipedia: Vogue (magazine), Wikipedia: Vanity Fair (magazine), and Wikipedia: The New York Times.

We function in a similar way to a gallery, and we want to be on our artists pages, much like Wikipedia:David Zwirner is linked to Wikipedia:Philip-Lorca DiCorcia, and Wikipedia:The Collective Shift is linked to Inez and Vindoodh. Their photographs are available for people to look at within our archive for free. Today, many people find out about artists through finding their work on the internet. If people want to see 15 pages (over 1,100 images) of Inez and Vinoodh's work, having Trunk Archive linked to their Wikipedia would offer the public a chance to see this archive. Our photographers have cult followings. Our archive presents an opportunity for fans of our photographers to engage with the work in a way that was not previously possible.

I have many other thoughts on this matter, but I don't want to take up too much of your time at this moment. Would you please enter into a discussion with me? In the spirit of Wikipedia, please present me with the opportunity to clarify my case.

Thank you.

Xmraox (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your candor. I too regret some aspects of what the Trunk Archive went through here.

You raise a number of points here, and I agree with several. However, I don't want to go through your message point by point (I think that this would be exhausting for both of us). Rather, I'll try to get an understanding on a few of these points, so that we can advance from there.

Yes, it is permissible to link from the article on a photographer (or artist) to the article on his or her dealer or representative, or vice versa. John Buckley links to Nicholas Treadwell and vice versa. Each is informative; it's particularly helpful for the reader who knows the work of one of these men but not that of the other.

The article on Treadwell also has two short (and overlapping) lists of people who've been associated with him: one per book. I'm the perpetrator of both and as I look at them now I'm not so happy with them.

You give two examples. The one I've looked at is that of Philip-Lorca diCorcia and David Zwirner Gallery. However, at least in its present state, it's not a good example at all. I don't happen to know of the Gallery, but the article on it (though probably well-intentioned) is dreadful. And because it's dreadful, the links to it may well be viewed with some suspicion.

The article Trunk Archive is poor too. It's poor in a rather different way, but anyway it's only three sentences long. As it's only a "stub" and as its website has been discussed as a spammer, links to it are sure to be viewed with suspicion.

To restore credibility to all of this, the article Trunk Archive should first be improved to the point where people will think that links to it are worthwhile. But a problem here is that googling doesn't present much in the way of "reliable sources" that one can work with. Of course, not all reliable sources are on the web; there are magazines too. Do you have any suggestions? -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hoary,

Thank you so much for getting back to me.

I really love the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, and if you feel that my editing of articles would help establish me as an editor, I will gladly contribute. I am an unpaid intern for Trunk Archive. I receive school credit for my work here, which is mainly working on Wikipedia, Facebook, and Twitter, so I am learning Wikipedia more and more everyday I work on this project.

We really want to make the Trunk Archive Wikipedia page clean, and we want to be given the chance to establish ourselves as being notable. What are the steps I can take to remove the warnings at the top of the Trunk Archive Wikipedia page?

Thanks again for your help.

Xmraox (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on Facebook or Twitter, neither of which I use. But what you write suggests that your supervisor at Trunk doesn't understand Wikipedia. As there's an article here about Trunk and as Trunk represents a list of photographers many of whom have articles here, a good instruction to you as (sorry, unpaid) employee would be to go through each one of these, look for any untruths in it and put it on your "watchlist" (by clicking the option "watch this page"). And then, if anything is or goes amiss, to alert other, uninvolved editors to the problem via that article's talk page. Don't touch the article itself, other than to revert obvious vandalism (the "HE'S GAY!!!" type of rubbish).

You can't write anything in the article on Trunk that will establish Trunk as notable. Anything that you add there is sure to backfire in one way or another. What you can do is point to web pages at reliable sources (newspaper websites, magazine websites, etc) or to articles in published magazines that do so. You can do this in Talk:Trunk Archive, which is on my watchlist and almost certainly on other people's watchlists too. -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight. I will start to post links on the Talk Page to show new articles where we have been covered. Our work is in new publications every day, and so I can point to some of the more recent examples of this, as well as to articles about Trunk Archive. I wish there were some way that I could contribute to the Trunk Archive article so that it would no longer be seen as a stub. There is more to the company than what is written on Wikipedia. Is there any way I can contribute without being flagged? Thanks. Xmraox (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the posting on the talk page. I understand that you meant well with the long quotation from PDN, but I thought it was so long that I had to delete it. As I've written there, it's still accessible.

The best thing for you to do in the short term is ... nothing. Just be patient. -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, I wanted to check in with you to see if you had given any more thought to updating the Trunk Archive Wikipedia page, so that it doesn't have as many warnings at the top. I hope you feel that the company is notable, as are its artists. I would like to be able to edit the page without being blacklisted - all out in the open - to reflect what Trunk Archive actually does and why others would like to know about the extensive image archive. THANK YOU :) Xmraox (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, I am wondering if you have given more thought to taking down the warnings off of Trunk Archive's Wikipedia page. Could you let me know your thoughts? Thank you for your time. Xmraox (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

French contemporary photographers

In the article on Michel Poivert, there is a list of several contemporary photographers which have been included in a collection of monographs. They are: Mathieu Pernot, Gilles Saussier, Stanislas Amand, Philippe Durand, Éric Rondepierre, Arno Gisinger (an Austrian) and Charles Fréger. There are no articles about them in the English WP. I wondered if you had come across any of them and whether you think they should be included. - Ipigott (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any of them, but this in itself means nothing. In your position I might Google for them, look at their work, decide whose oeuvre interested me most, and consider writing up that person. (Meanwhile, how about this exciting article [emoticon]?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I googled for Pernot, was taken to his site, and was told to download a plug-in. Sorry no, M. Pernot! I googled for Saussier, couldn't immediately find his own website -- which is by no means a bad thing; despite conventional wisdom to the contrary, a number of first-rate photographers working today dispense with websites -- and found pages about him, but these were written in somniferous art-gallery-speak. Sorry no, M. Saussier!

Of course either or both of these could be excellent, despite first (non-) appearances. As could any or all of the others.

But really, look at the photographers touted by just about any "authority" these days and they're an uninspiring lot. One must either (a) bow to orthodoxy (not me!), or (b) go to bookshops and search among the modish and forgettable for the gems or find some bloggers or similar sources whose opinions are worth a look and consider their recommendations. Just during the last week, I've come across Ara Oshagan in a bookshop and learned of Rob Hornstra in a blog; each of these is doing work that I find hugely more interesting than that by any of the "exciting" contemporary photographers that so thrill award committees and publishers. But I wouldn't push either Oshagan or Hornstra on you; instead, enjoy pursuing your own tastes. -- 23:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments (and for the Ingeborg novel). In fact, I thought a couple of the French contemporary photographers seemed rather interesting from their French WP articles but perhaps not quite interesting enough. I was however rather impressed by the Dane Israel B. Melchior who I came across accidentally. He now has a short article. But while I am here, I would like to have your opinion on WikiBhasha. I've played with the tool myself and it works quite well but the latest long addition to the article seems more like a user guide. I've made a comment on the talk page and also with User talk:WikiBhasha.MSR but there has been no reaction. Any suggestions? - Ipigott (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well done on Melchior, Sir.

Any or all of the French photographers may be very worthwhile.

My own (France/Denmark-irrelevant) discovery today has been George Georgiou. His one book looks good but thanks to a major theme (the construction of dreary blocks of flats) rather depressing; I like his photographs of Ukraine and Georgia a lot. -- Hoary (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugger me (though not literally, thanks all the same), you're quick. Believe it or not, that hadn't been intended as a hint. I'd wanted to give the man an article but hadn't found sufficient sources and therefore gave up, at least for the short term. You were more tenacious. Well done! -- Hoary (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

An interesting change. The article's not too bad with your additions. - Ipigott (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, hmm, I must confess that I can't come up with any of the first ten of the most significant Czech(oslovak) comics in any genre. (Comic -- or anyway seriocomic -- character, and I'd ignorantly guess that Švejk would be near the top.) Congratulations on your DYK! -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Time: The Year in Pictures

Perhaps not surprisingly, most of the photographers behind Time's 2010 "The Year in Pictures" are not yet in Wikipedia. Of the ten in the printed version, only three are in WP. And only one of the additional names in the digital version is covered.

• Daniel Morel is a Haitian who took photos immediately after the earthquake.
• Benjamin Lowy owes his fame to the colourful shot of the Gulf of Mexico oil slick.
• Yuri Kozyrev has specialized in war zones.
• Ragnar Th. Sigurdsson took pictures of the Icelandic volcano.
• Cédric Gerbehaye was in Sudan.
• Daniel Berehulak has been in Pakistan - I rather like his style.
• Jorge Duenes (see mini bio in RH column) has been doing the Mexican border,

There are already short articles on Lynsey Addario (the only woman) and Adam Ferguson and a rather longer one on James Nachtwey.

Are any of the above interesting enough to be included in WP? If so, in what order of priority?

If you want to go further, only one of those in the digital version is included: Anthony Suau. All the others are still missiing: Callie Shell, Shaul Schwarz, Peter van Agtmael, Dominic Nahr, Richard Mosse, Peter van Agtmael, Mario Tama, Massimo Berruti, Moises Saman. Have fun! - Ipigott (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Ipigott, but there are squillions of contemporary photographers of some notability, or so it seems, and hundreds whose work I happen already to know really is notable. I'd guess that most whose work I'd think really was notable I don't know: after all, probably eight out of the last ten photobooks I've bought, and perhaps four out of five of those I'm most in the mood to buy, are by people I'd not heard of this time last year, even though they had put out good stuff. ¶ It's past my bedtime so I shan't now click the links that you thoughtfully provided. (Later, I shall return and do this.) Instead, I'll just say which redlinked names are immediately familiar: Peter van Agtmael, and Richard Mosse. That their names are immediately familiar of course does not mean that they are the most worthwhile or even the best known. If you're after somebody who definitely is worthwhile, how about Paolo Pellegrin (who now has just a crappy stub), or Guy Le Querrec (whose notability some [expletive deleted] has questioned) or Thomas Dworzak or Alex Webb. (Yes, yes, I'm lazily reading these off the article Magnum Photos, but I'm doing so discriminatingly.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I was going to recommend Daniel Berehulak, because you like his work; I see that you've got him an article. Well done.

My own choice would be Cédric Gerbehaye. But I have to finish other work first. -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought Cédric was quite interesting too. Might have a go on him tomorrow. In the meantime, I thought Yuri Kozyrev deserved some recognition. And to think that all this came out of your proposal for a categroy change! But I should soon be getting back to Luxembourg culture. - Ipigott (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yuri Kozyrev has turned out to be more interesting than I thought. If you were to find this suitable for DYK, you could write: "... that the award-winning war photographer Yuri Kozyrev, who has spent several years in Baghdad, found it important not to be seen as an American but rather as a Russian photographer working for the American press" - or something along those lines. ... posted by Ipigott at 11:00, 15 December 2010

Sorry but (perhaps despite appearances a few centimetres above) I don't know the DYK process at all. However, I look forward to rereading the article after I've slept. -- Hoary (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I. On a couple of occasions I tried to cope with it but it was far too difficult. I've suggested that the procedure should be simplified but I am told everyone else finds it easy! - Ipigott (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I once started to read about it but I dozed off before I'd grasped the rudiments. Pity. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to cope with the DYK thing. Let's see what happens. Hope they don't come back to me with lots of unanswerable questions. Seems to me there's a lot of superfluous stuff they ask for. Suggestions for DYK could be greatly simplified if they just asked for the name of the article and the wording of the question. That would take care of most of the suggestions. All the rest of the stuff could be retrieved automatically. I'm sure they would get at least twice as many interesting submissions. But then most of the people working on these things are computer buffs with little understanding of basic communication! - Ipigott (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I join your conversation for a moment. The DYK process is not so complicated when you follow the rules listed at WP:WIADYK. More than fifty of my articles appeared in the DYK section, usually without problems. I think Yuri Kozyrev meets the criteria, but I'd change the hook to emphasize his achievements rather than his personal feelings (in my opinion, it would be more suitable for an encyclopedia). What about: "... that in 2003, the war photographer Yuri Kozyrev received the 1st prize in the category General News stories of the World Press Photo competition?" Just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

People from Akagi

Hello Hoary. Do you like the book? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I was amazed to come across it (at a used bookshop, yesterday). I first noticed the name Jindřich Štreit on the spine, eagerly pulled it out, and was surprised that it was about Japan. (I'd forgotten that he'd worked here.)

There's some excellent work in this book. Some of the photographs are pretty humdrum and the editing could have been a bit tighter, but on average the work is good indeed and at its best it's excellent.

If I were certain that the material in the back of the book was not put together by Štreit himself (or that nobody would claim that it was), and if there were twelve or so days in the week, I could use it to lengthen our list of his exhibitions. But as it is, sorry but no.

The book is let down terribly by its printing quality. It really doesn't look like something from as recent as 1996. The printing technology either was old or hadn't been intended for photographs. (I know that at its best, Czech printing quality of that time was a lot better.)

A small point, but the Japanese title is odd. Literally, it means "Japan: People from Akagi village". The "from" (actually kara) rather suggests that they're not in Akagi any more, but of course they are there. I'd guess that the "from" part of the Czech title is z and that this more broadly means "of". How's my linguistic guesswork? -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Vlasta Čiháková-Noshiro is a respected Czech Japanologist and curator ... I can't comment on this, as my knowledge of Japanese is non-existent. What about the English translation? Czech z means "of" and also "from", it depends on the context. Is the title "People from Akagi" incorrect or misleading?

The publisher of the book is apparently a local gallery or a town (Opava and Rychnov nad Kněžnou), and the books of small and occasional publishers are not always professional (I admit, the same sometimes applies for big and respected publishing houses :)). However, the printing quality and technology of specialized art photography publishers in the Czech Rep. (mainly Torst and Kant) is usually very good even today (the owners are fans and connoisseurs and the printing quality is very important for them). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the book with me now but as I remember the English text is good and the Japanese text is by somebody else.

The book doesn't have an English title. Its Japanese title suggests that the people depicted are no longer in Akagi. But they're very much in Akagi! (Still, the title doesn't necessarily mean that they're no longer in Akagi.)

It's not fair to judge the printing quality by 2010 standards. But even by 1996 standards it's underwhelming.

However, it must be said that although Japanese printing quality can be superb, often it isn't, even now. And some people say that as black-and-white photobooks become less common, B/W printing quality is on average declining -- in Japan and also elsewhere. Certainly books that combine color and B/W tend to to have mediocre B/W.

Perhaps my next rural B/W acquisition will be the (non-Czech!) Grimaces of the Weary Village, according to Colin Pantall "a fabulous book of rough and ready images, printed in a rough and ready manner on what looks like inkjet paper. You get the feeling the book will fall apart pretty soon and that the colours aren't quite right, but somehow that goes with the pictures of a village life that is gone for now, but not forever." [I can't fully understand the part following "a village life".] Unfortunately the book is priced for artiness rather than trashiness so I am hoping to see it discounted. -- Hoary (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, this is close to my sentimental nature ... I live in a place where I can see the remnants of this old vanishing world, and I admire the people who can see and preserve the everyday reality in such a poetic and beautiful way ... Most of people no longer see the world this way ... Uff, enough of this, nostalgia is on my blacklist :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wwwwwhat? Maybe we have been looking at different descriptions of or examples from Grimaces of the Weary Village. What I've seen of it is rather nightmarish, though not exclusively so. -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, "nightmare" is a pretty handy interpretation of such a kind of art. Nevertheless, for me it is a poetry and beauty - there's no intention to shock or scare in the photos, it is just an attempt to picture a raw life through a perceptive eye. The reception depends on cultural background and remains subjective, of course. I admit, it is a strange kind of beauty. What do you think about Francis Bacon (the painter)? His works are often associated with the terms like "horror" and "terror" and "nightmare" and I don't know what ... That's cheap. It is an attempt to come closer to the core of human existence. A successfull and inimitable attempt. Okay stop, I began with my rural philosophizing, and that's bad :)) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Um . . . OK then!

I know very little of Bacon, I'm ashamed to say. I must have (directly) seen a fair number of his paintings in the past, but have no memory of having done so. Of course I've seen little reproductions in books. Yes, they did seem to show some sort of terror -- but then I wonder if some do and only these have stayed in my memory.

I've never been a fan. Interested and sometimes impressed, yes, but no more. When it comes to late 20th century British painting I'm much more a fan of the very different Anthony Green. I'm amazed that no conventionally published book of Green's work seems to have appeared since 1984, but I suppose he's either too witty or not sufficiently shouty to be a really big name in the wacky world of Art (capitalized). -- Hoary (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Review request

When you get a chance, can you look at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chickamauga Indian when you get a chance, as I respect your opinion, whether for or against. Thanks, GenQuest (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This certainly appears to be outside the general run of AfDs. I'm terribly underinformed on this subject area but if time permits I'll try to make an informed comment. However, this will take some time, if it happens at all. -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can. Either way, thanks. GenQuest (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Marcou

Deletion comment I saw your comment on the Marcou article. Daivd Marcou has 1 of the 3 pictures of Bert Hardy in the NPG. Many pictures of Bert Hardy were taken during his life. Mr. Marcou has had over 1,000 photographs, 2,000 articles, and 30 books published. For most of his life he has worked as a freelance writer. For a representative view of his work look at the Wisconsin Historical Society or LaCrosse history links. Sincerely, Dacorbandit (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You are very free to improve the article accordingly. (See this for a list that I made of books by, or with substantial contributions by, a photographer.) And you're also very welcome to participate in the "AfD". -- Hoary (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hoary. You have new messages at CharlieEchoTango's talk page.
Message added 16:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Merge discussion for Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Traveler100 (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)