User talk:Lopifalko

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

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Now, remain motionless as my assistant here administers the truth serum, mwahaha. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I really have no idea how to send a message to you thanking you for your work on my wikipedia page... which is why I'm typing this in the most random spot. Thank you for your work, not just for my page but for the enormous amount you do on wikipedia to put up accurate and informative content and to monitor it. I'm genuinely appreciative. With Love, Zoe Strauss

Also, this can be deleted asap, I just wanted you to know! Zoestrauss (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Zoestrauss (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

UK Social Centre Network[edit]

Thanks for the fixes on UK Social Centre Network, I'm just about to add refs if you give me 30 minutes. : -) Jonpatterns (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for jumping the gun. -Lopifalko (talk)

Sebastião Salgado[edit]

Dear Lopifalko, if there is no need for pictures of two exhibitions (different locations) of Sebastião Salgado, why did you prefer the one with a clearly worse picture quality (please compare the letters of the title of the exhibition in 100% views in terms of image noise and sharpness)? The readability of the author's name and the name of the exhibition is complete in my shot. Membeth (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I prefer the photograph that alredy accompanied the article because I believe the important thing to show about a photograph from an exhibition is the context of the exhibition - lots of photographs - which this photo does well, where as your photo only shows one exhibit. I think this is more important than the author's name and the name of the exhibition. I see your point that your photo is of higher quality at 100% but I expect most people who are reading the photograph will do so from within the article, it is not one that warrants looking at any larger in my opinion. I think photos of exhibitions add only slight value to an article, compared with photos of the subject of the article or their work, thus not worth having more than one photo unless they are of very different exhibitions. -Lopifalko (talk)

My Draft Articles[edit]

Hello Dear Lopifalko, thank you very much for your latest edits. Could you please not to edit my Draft articles, which are not yet published? Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. I made the edit in the hope that it would be seen as a friendly gesture to show you how lists on Wikipedia should be in chronological order, as I see you have made this same mistake across various articles. -Lopifalko (talk)
Thank you very much for the help. I've asked because I sometimes have draft articles opened in edit mode for some hours and I don't want to mess with overlapping edits. I will really appreciate your guidance and assistance in the future. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is Nowa removing wikilinks?[edit]

Just doing an experiment. No offense intended. I can explain in more detail if you want.--Nowa (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Please do explain, or link me to an explanation, but only if you can spare the time. Lopifalko (talk)
Lopifalko, Thanks. It's no big mystery. I wanted to see how other editors would react if an artist's bio was tagged with “orphan”. My main interest was with the David Horvitz article.--Nowa (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you know?[edit]

Did you know that Henri Cartier-Bresson was considered to be the father of photojournalism?

No, I didn't either.

But did you know that Wikipedia said this for over one decade?

Jeez. -- Hoary (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You finally proved it once and for all – Wikipedia's full of shit. Fuck Linus's Law. -Lopifalko (talk)

I'd not heard of that, and so took a look.

The law states that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"; or more formally: "Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone."

The amazing/depressing thing is that this conspicuously situated and idiotic claim of having fathered photojournalism survived multiple edits to the article by, and thus eyeballing by, such not-total-photography-ignoramuses as, er, Pinkville, TheMindsEye, you and me (two of whom have since their shots at it pretty much disappeared). But the "law" assumes that the eyeballs aren't glazed. And of course they are, and no wonder they are (or that we just give up), what with all the junk that we see (today's rediscovery: Filip Naudts). -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits done by Lopifalko to Glen E. Friedman[edit]

Thank you for trying to help on this page, but it's disappointing that sources such as the Washington Post and others credited as not being valid in your estimation are not worthy of a wiki entry.

Hi. I consider to likely not be a reliable source in Wikipedia's consideration, because it looks to be the work of a single person, and does not have a Wikipedia article about it. The Washington Post ref did not give a URL. I don't consider, a gallery hosting his work, to give an objective opinion on him being one of the greatest photographers of his generation. I have instead been replacing these weak references with new reliable references, so far The Guardian and Dazed.
Thumped is a publication with many writers from around the world i was able to find in a quick google search. Also searched " … and and came up with many sources that concur with the statement that show wiki readers who may not know, the artists' significance, BBC, Washington Post, Dazed and Confused, among galleries, book guides, sellers, as well as print and on line publications agree by publishing the same information, and respectful recognition of his place among the generation.

There was also a lot of other important and well sourced information you removed from the post including but not limited to Friedman's association and credits in the film Dogtown and Z-Boys the award winning movie of which he was very influential in.

The article said "Friedman's film credit, co-producer and creative consultant, barely touch on the major influence he had on the feature-length documentary" which is not an encyclopaedic description. I intend to list films under their own section.
Look forward to seeing this section, thank you. perhaps look at the film credits on the actual movie posters themselves since iMdb is not always complete

Also removing the educational institutions and museum collections that have his work for people to examine in person for educational purposes, why would you delete this information from a source that is supposed to inform?

I retained those public collections for which there is a reference, and removed those for which there was not, as is Wikipedia policy. If references can be found for those collections then they can return.
i think that is a disservice to the education of those looking to wiki for information, they were listed on the artists website I believe, and one would believe institutions have them in there collections for students and others to examine, again i will look for on-line sources to list or perhaps send them to you, and although you say the artists website ideally is not where you'd like to get information from it really is a great source there to be used, wikipedia contributors should. Would you not source information from the artists books in regard to his art or career?

Is there a reason you don't think the artists website is not a reliable source of information?

Ideally the article should be sourced to reliable and independent sources.
Ideally, understood, but it'd be silly not to rely on it for good information unless it has been proven unreliable. For example you listed or someone recently listed only one exhibition, if you go to the artists website you can see the flyers for many many other shows and then perhaps source articles for reviews etc.
Another thing to consider is that there was and is information that is in PRINT that was not available on-line when written so using the artists website of old printed press articles may come in handy for research (which may not be found on line other places).

This artist is well established and exhibited throughout the world and sold tens of thousands of books independently and through major publishing houses. This article as it stood before you hacked away at it was very legitimate your lack of research to validate your edits were uninformed and seemed like you have some personal beef with this artists work or political beliefs perhaps. Please go back and look more closely and reverse your extreme hatchet job to this article that prior was very informative and easy to read. That said I can agree with you on removing some of the more ambiguous terms and happy you've done that. I can try contacting the various institutions about there collections to see if they have them also listed on line some where to link to, but most older institutions do not in my experience. Thanks for your help if you mean well, but please put back the interesting, descriptive and informative information, don't delete work that was submitted on Wikipedia because of your personal lack of basic knowledge of the artist.

I do not need to know anything about the artist, I am applying Wikipedia policy. I am in the process of bringing the article in line with Wikipedia policy, encyclopaedic tone, stripping away the awful mess it was in and building it back up into a decent article that is well supported by reliable references, objective, and more thorough than when I began.
I beg to differ, if you are editing a piece on any subject you should know something about the subject to do it accurately. Sure you can work on information that is ambiguous and clean up grammar, but to remove descriptions of the atist or the work that help explain to the reader what the artist does or is known for doing, or sourced opinions of the artist makes little sense.

Reminds me of how I first became familiar with the artists work, in an article from an Irish group of designers that had Friedman lecture in new york city, they did a splendid article on him and his work that I refund for you here: so perhaps you may like to repost their lovely quote about Friedman.

Apologies in advance if this is not the correct place to put this note, i am new to wiki editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Search&dastroy (talkcontribs) 14:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite. First rule of Wikipedia is assume good faith. I'm not new to this, I've written 48 Wikipedia articles. -Lopifalko (talk)
I am not new to reading wikipedia, i love it and contribute money to it every year, and we both know there are mostly great entries and some very poor entries, so i have to beg to differ with your opinion on this one, as a person who appreciates the artist and work I believe it was a very good entry, and I do believe your edits for the most part were a disservice to the community.
I will say the "list of Publications with significant contributions by Friedman" seems a bit outdated and can use a re-fresh if not an entire overhaul or removal even, what do you think? I love the movie section idea and perhaps You can create a gallery of his work some how? I believe on his website he has an entire section dedicated to free use images. here:

Search&dastroy (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Lopifalko, In efforts to not edit your your edits yet again, can you please consider the following:

If you read the opening lines of the edit you have made it shows little evidence of the artist place in the culture at large, where the quotes if you read the articles supplied (and even 100's more written in the past, some too old to be on-line, which is a travesty for you not to respect just because they were written before the internet publishing of articles was common place) is clearly given.

You should add back in either "One of the most important photographers of his generation", "The most important photographer of his generation" or something to this effect that has been cited and republished in many places including major publication and broadcast networks internationally.

It clarifies what separates him from any other photographer that perhaps also photographed the same bands or skateboarders. As well, clarifying the amount of time he has done these things in the introductory paragraphs again accentuates the importance of this very entry. Merely saying he's been published and has photographs on record covers does not quantify the greatness of the career that is there and clearly on record. Generally speaking these entries are not for mediocre artists, these are to be for artist of great note, so I believe after you've done further research as I have you may reconsider your edits to put these points back in. Other than his induction into the "Skateboarding Hall of Fame" the article that you have trimmed down does not adequately describe the importance of the artists career and work. You have removed too much of this information and I or someone else will eventually add it back, cited as it was if you don't care to do it yourself.

Shooting record covers for groups such as Minot Threat, Black Flag, as well as Public Enemy, Beastie Boys and RunDMC is an incredibly unique achievement, shooting these very popular groundbreaking revolutionary groups in the different genres, and the beginnings of modern day skateboarding culture so uniquely, clearly spoken about in all the many many articles written about Friedman again is a disservice to the people seeking information from Wikipedia about him. The fact that Friedman generally known as a photographer also produced the largest selling hardcore punk album of the 80's seems like something you would not want to leave out of the entry. It may sound promotional but it's a fact that is respected and discussed in the press often that revalidates the importance of the entry.

Above is provided many recent items of press for you to adequately describe the artist, his work, and clear significance that you obviously did not understand before you went in and did what you did. Lets show the importance of the work, not merely that it was done, many reputable RECENT and ON-LINE sources above explain it quite clearly and coincide with what was removed or doubted by you.

I am clearly just trying to improve this page as a great source of information on an artist i respect. I own an actual encyclopedia since i was a kid, it has great information, and it's not just dry facts, its factual information that also shows the importance of the subject and reason for the subjects inclusion in such a collection, I expect nothing less from this great source.

Thank you for your reconsideration. Search&dastroy (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Talk page stalker here. I read:::You should add back in either "One of the most important photographers of his generation", "The most important photographer of his generation" or something to this effect that has been cited and republished in many places including major publication and broadcast networks internationally.
If this claim is made by a respected writer or in a respected periodical, it can be recycled here; otherwise I'd skip it. After all, this is the kind of assertion that frothy periodicals (perhaps recycling promotional press releases) freely make about various people. I note that Friedman was born in 1962. That's the same year as, say, Gregory Crewdson and Guy Tillim. In order to be taken seriously, a claim that somebody is "The most important photographer of his generation" should indicate how his work is superior to that of Crewdson, Tillim and others. -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking at Search&dastroy's Google search links above for 'glen e. friedman "the most significant photographer of his generation"' returns just 8 sites:
  • - an exhibition space - not a noteworthy voice on the matter to begin with, but they quote what reads like Friedman's own artist statement / bio that is likely written by himself
  • - quotes the same artist bio as above
  • - quotes the same artist bio as above
  • - quotes the same artist bio as above
  • - quotes the same artist bio as above
  • - quotes the same artist bio as above
  • - quotes the quote that quotes, seeming to claim that it means something because has copy and pasted it
  • - quotes the same artist bio as above -Lopifalko (talk)
Well why would so many sources print it if they did not believe it to be true as well? And who is to make the judgement or respected or not, that's pretty subjective. Clearly just because it's in The New York Times doesn't always mean the writer is respected, and a writer of culture who actually knows something of the culture would be much more respected within the cultures circles than an outside writer from a more circulated publication, so your use of the word "respected" is highly questionable, particularly since you yourself believe that you need "no knowledge" of the subject to write a quality article on a given subject for the commons.
Originally the article did say not "the most important" but "Considered one of the most important" so why not add that back in? if you do the print research and watch the videos and see the collections Friedman is in, it's pretty clear that he in fact is at least "One of the most important photographers of his generation." He has clearly inspired many people and has been at the forefront of three very influential cultures like no other photographer. To say "Coming to prominence in the 1980s with his photography of skateboarders and musicians, Friedman is considered one of the most important photographers of his generation." is no exaggeration or over promotion.It also helps to explain why in fact there is a Wiki article on him. Look at all the press that exists. I've never seen or heard of a photographer who has been asked and done as many extensive interviews as he has done, why would publications show the respect they do if it was not important? You added citations from recent Guardian pieces that don't go a fraction of the way into the artists work like previously cited materials do, your prejudice against more cultured and certainly relevant but independent press makes no sense.
By the way, in an obvious ploy to attempt to belittle Friedman's books I noticed you added "self published", if you did the research, why not be more correct and say under his own imprint? you seem to not understand that self publishing was not a negative in his circles, but the preferred mode of independence from the corporate publishing world until this last publication. So why not add that bit of information that is interesting if you have an understanding of the DIY ethic and culture Friedman came up in. If you read, you know Burning Flags Press was his imprint, but from the first partnership with Henry Rollins 2.13.61 publications sometimes the publications have been joint efforts.
You also changed DogTown to Santa Monica, this now reads improperly, because DogTown was not only Santa Monica, but the entire area of West Los Angeles in skateboard culture. This is a clear example of when some one attempts to improve an article, that they have no knowledge of the subject, they can ruin its credibility with those who have some knowledge, or are more well read on the subject.
After doing research on the institutions where the work sits and finding "links" for several of the ones you questioned, others that Friedman lists on his bio, do in fact have the work but don't have those collections digitized for internet retrieval or research, that hardly makes them unworthy of note.
Lopifalko you have denigrated the original article from much of it's interesting and explanatory text, (albeit sometimes celebratory, which is not negative out of hand) to a pile of unexplained factoids that don't read well without further adjectives and explanations, and worse case are not true the way you have used them (same goes for Hoary). I will take all you've said into consideration, but will source the artists website or books when needed (even though you say it is not preferred, but as noted it's clearly allowed.)
I wish I could believe that you mean well, but it hardly appears that way with the destruction you've done to this piece. You could have asked for further or different citations, but not removed the beef of the article. Please consider your edits of subjects of which you have little or no knowledge more seriously before you edit next time. Thank you. Search&dastroy — Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Three points from a talk page stalker:
  • One of the most important: It's normal for books and articles that are largely about a particular person or his/her work to say that this person is one of the most important whatevers, or even the most important whatever. And it's very likely that the writers sincerely believe this. But this kind of sourced claim could easily be added to thousands (if not tens of thousands) of Wikipedia articles, and this wouldn't be informative. The question to ask is: Do general surveys say the same thing? In this case, does some well-informed book (or even solid periodical article) about photography of the 1980s and 1990s in general say this kind of thing about Friedman? If so, that would certainly be worth adding to the article.
  • Self-publication: There are indeed plenty of self-published photobooks that are excellent or notable or both. Look into the three volumes of Parr/Badger's The Photobook and you'll see plenty. I'm happy to possess copies of a number of excellent self-published photobooks myself. Some photographers' notability rests almost entirely on their self-published photobooks: Kiyoshi Suzuki (an interesting photographer despite the boring non-article) is one. What's the difference between talking of "[somebody]'s self-published photobook" and talking of "photobook published under [somebody's] own imprint"? (I suspect it's analogous to the difference between talking of a "used car" and talking of a "pre-owned car".)
  • DogTown: Plenty of people (eg myself) have a hazy, partial understanding of LA. Encountering the unfamiliar term "DogTown", we go to DogTown, see that this is irrelevant, go to Dogtown, then to Dogtown, California, and then (since California's counties are unfamiliar), we give up. Something could be improved here and very likely you're excellently qualified to do it.
-- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits done by Lopifalko to Hal Prewitt[edit]

Efforts to improve the page are very much appreciated; some were helpful, however many edits have done a disservice to the living person, his bio and users of wikipedia. You and a few editors recently made a great number of changes including removing facts, relevant and contextual based content posted by many others of which has been on this page a long while. I had not worked on this article since 2012 until recently when I noticed the changes.

For over 5 years, more than 30 editors have contributed to the page. Stats show the article is currently viewed hundreds (sometime many thousands) of times each month and is pushing somewhere in the hundreds of thousands since it was created.

I am a member of WikiProject Sports Car Racing and WikiProject Biography. I have extensive knowledge and experience in these subjects and a general understanding about most of the people's skills, WikiProjects and content I have worked on or am currently developing. I focus on living people. As part of the research I try to meet them, interview anyone I can reach and conduct systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach correct conclusions. I spend hundreds of hours of effort collecting and verifying content I have published on these subjects. I have received images, historical records and obtain permissions where necessary or advisable.

I have followed these processes reviewing and working on Prewitt's bio. My recent effort was to undo some of the removals (you and a few made) and update the page with new details. You promptly reversed most if not all my changes. This is a big problem and needs to be resolved. Please undo. My objection is the removal of facts, relevant and contextual based content. I am not objecting to "toning down" content sourced from marketing, promotional materials or websites.

Show respect for this living person's bio, work done by other editors and provide users of wikipedia with the content you removed. The words do not harm the bio.

Great Wikipededia articles come from editors who do the hard research and include work done by other's who they disagree with. Having direct knowledge about subjects related to a bio along with obtaining access to the difficult to find historic details on the person produces a factual and complete biography. It is proper to flag issues, ask questions and add content. Do not remove other editors content unless factually incorrect. Not liking the style, words, disagreeing with other people opinions or finding something "promotional and badly sourced", "whole pile of less worthwhile additions", "citations of Prewitt's corporate website" or "unsupported and non-noteworthy info" does not justify removal. The correct methods is to identify, comment or ask for more citations.

- One example: your justification of using "notability by association" to remove "in the years just prior to the introduction of their first personal computer" in the sentence "He provided consulting services to IBM in the years just prior to the introduction of their first personal computer and is credited..." impacts the context and relevance. IBM is a very large company. When and what someone did is a key fact. Defining context is key to understanding relevance to Prewitt's services. This is not "notability by association".

- Here's another: In his Youth section, using "Removed superfluous / biased language that fluffs up the subject, or is not noteworthy" you removed "At 15, before he had a driver's license, he rebuilt the engine of a neighbor's Fiat after it was pronounced unsalvageable". This is a fact and clearly noteworthy ​and not superfluous nor "fluffs up the subject". How many teens rebuild engines let alone those that are unsalvageable? Prewitt grew up and became a successful and famous race car driver among many other technological based achievements. Don't you see the relevance?

Reading your talk page, appears your interest and skills relate to photography.Would be best to help on this article's photography points and leave other work to editors with direct knowledge of Prewitt and/or members of WikiProject Sports Car Racing.

​Please restore the ​facts, relevant and contextual based content.

-- Deansmith750 (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Links to photokina[edit]

Hi Lopifalko. I just reverted four of your reverts to "photokina <year>" links as I changed these links on purpose (except for the typo in one of them, of course). The intended purpose of going through the redirect is that it automatically groups events by photokina years for easier research of photokina events by year and to help expand the photokina article itself in the future. See Talk:photokina#Links to "photokina <year>" available for the rationale behind this. Thanks and greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know your rationale behind this, I understand now. -Lopifalko (talk)

A barnstar[edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
in recognition of the heavy lifting you're doing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil America (2nd nomination)

E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments are requested at "Photographs of Alan Kurdi"[edit]

Hi, Please consider giving a comment in the deletion discussion for Photographs of Alan Kurdi. There does not seem to be a guideline that says that one can not have one article about the Photographs of Alan Kurdi - a set of photographs that has gathered notable reactions - and another article about the boy who is pictured lifeless in the photos, or the events leading to his death. Burst of unj (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

from the award body themselves[edit]

On this: good addition, but I think there's no need to subtract. After all, I've seen some "contributors" moan that when you only have references to the institution directly involved, this suggests that third parties aren't interested, in turn suggesting a lack of notability (groan).

Then again, the more references there are, the more link rot there's sure to be. (My work here of 8 to 10 September was no fun -- and a number of the dead links had only been created a year or so previously.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Groan indeed. I've put them back. Must stop now for a bit. Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Ta, fanx! -- Hoary (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Delpire, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jack Lang, Lartigue and William Klein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

NY school of photography[edit]

Now freshly if modestly created. The list of what links to "New York School (art)" goes on at eye-glazing length; if you'd like to try scanning it for articles that are more likely to link to New York school of photography, much appreciated. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I will. I had noticed what you wrote on the New York School of Art article, and I have been reading Badger on the topic with a view to adding his thoughts. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, good. The latter is much more interesting than link checking. (I wonder which badgerbook this might be.) Today I looked through six big fat books that might well have written about a NY school of photography; and although there were things written in a couple of these that were compatible with the notion (and that I might well have used if I were instead writing a term paper), there was nothing usable for the article. Incidentally, an interesting point Livingston makes is that (despite the background of several of these people in Art-with-a-capital-A) they prided themselves on being photographers, not artists. As art is where more money can be found, I have considerable sympathy for the efforts of today's photographers to call themselves "artists working in lens-based media" blah blah; but it sure is refreshing to read no-horseshit accounts of people pointing their cameras at what they saw that interested them. (Um, rant over, sorry.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I was too bleary-eyed to understand what you had asked of me earlier, and completely missed that you had written New York school of photography – fantastic. I will transcribe Badger's comments from The Genius of Photography: How Photography has Changed our Lives. (BBC; Quadrille, 2007) -Lopifalko (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I've quite forgotten The Genius, though I have a vague feeling that I've read it, or at least looked at it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

There's more to come from this page, but for this is the meat of it, from page 137: "'Towards a Social Landscape The problem with photographing rocks is how to make work that expresses and evokes something more than woolly romanticism. It can be done - rocks as well as city streets have meanings, and important meanings for us - but any photographer looking to make "modern" photographs, pictures that comment upon the here and now, finds both an easier and a richer vein of material in the metropolis. Since that first image by Daguerre of the Boulevard du Temple, the street has been a natural hunting ground for photographers, especailly American photographers of the 1960s and '70s.

The key photographers at the end of the war to influence this trend were Walker Evans, Weegee and the members of the Photo League, and for them New York rather than Paris became the key city. Out of New York City came a photographic vision that was a deal rawer than the humanist street photography practised in Paris. And so, although it was never defined as such, street photography in the 1950s was very much a case of the 'New York School' and the 'School of Paris'. It would be too rude to say that they were in opposition, but cultural attitudes made for two very different approaches.'"

And from page 147: "Joel Meyerowitz's New York street pictures of the late 1960s and early '70s were in the familiar genre of the so-called New York School. There was, however, one major and crucial difference. His vibrant, complex views of the crowded New York sidewwalks were shot in colour.'"

Page 16 of Gilles Mora's The Last Photographic Heroes seems to talk around the topic without naming it as a New York School. I'll look at this when I have more time later. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"If there was a "Los Angeles School," it consisted of such photographers as ... and could be viewed as being in direct opposition to the straight, documentary-oriented New York School." - The Pleasures of Good Photographs by Gerry Badger, page 158.

"Szarkowski ... documentary, usually street-based photography that he espoused was usually a male preserve. It was also a New York Thing. The photographers he proposed as the most important of their day — Arbus, Friedlander, and Winogrand ... American women's photography of the 1970s may be seen therefore, as a challenge to the largely male culture of straight photographic modernism, and the hegemony of New York and the Museum of Modern Art, in particular. ... what some saw as the hard-headed, macho cynicism of the New York "School" of street photographers." - The Pleasures of Good Photographs by Gerry Badger, pages 203–205.

plant a few bugs[edit]

Hi my friend. thanks of you would put some times to answer to me. could you plz tell me what the idiom "plant a few bugs" means? here examples [1] may help you. thanks a million Alborzagros (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! your reply helped me much. HAVE A NICE DAY. Alborzagros (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:In Public logo.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:In Public logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't use it as it is white or transparent and I do not know how to create a background colour in an infobox. I have tried to replace it using an alternate logo but the replacement is a JPEG where this is a PNG and the Wikipedia tool seems to require a replacement image be of the same format. Please can you delete it for me, I will upload the new file separately. Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Manu Brabo[edit]

Given your interest in photography/photographers, you may be interested in the new page about Manu Brabo. I hope you check it out. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a good article, thanks for the contribution and for letting me know about it. I've given it a quick look over and made some amendments, obviously just revert or discuss any of my changes you don't agree with. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Leila Alaoui[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Leila Alaoui at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusunW (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Leila Alaoui[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

.NET Framework version history[edit]

Although external links in the prose is unwanted, I think you should sometimes convert some of them into sources instead of just deleting them. For example, in this edit, "Support for Code Contracts" needs a source and the external link was a source. Fleet Command (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Invariably that is exactly what I do, but in this case, for example the "Support for Code Contracts" that you point out, is a link for Code Contracts for .NET itself, not for Code Contracts' inclusion in .NET Framework 4.0. So in my opinion that link isn't appropriate to use as a ref, as you have later done. The same is true for the subsequent link to the BigInteger Structure page. The link for "final version of .NET Framework 4.0" linked only to the download page for .Net 4.0, rather than to a page describing the release. The other links I removed already had an additional corresponding ref. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, for BigInteger I changed the link to have "(VS=100)" in it, which says it is added in .NET Framework 4. As for support for Code Contracts, I added the web archive link because the current link goes to Visual Studio gallery. Fleet Command (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. We both seem to have done the right thing. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

articulating screen[edit]

Thanks for your help with the articulating screen site. But please undo your two revisions from 24 March 2016; there you removed the slash between seemingly different camera models in quite a few places. The slash was there for a reason. These are THE SAME cameras just with different names for different parts of the world. This is common with certain camera models and brands, the best known is maybe Canon with the Rebel and the EOS names for the same cameras. There are other such examples as you could see on this site before you changed it. So, they are NOT separate camera models. You can look it up on the internet if you are not sure. Thanks again and keep up the good work. Stillbusy (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I hoped someone would pull me up on this if that was the case (I said "I am assuming these can be unmerged?"). I'll revert. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
No big deal, really. It was a good idea that you put in the columns. The site looks nicer and is easier to read that way. Taking into consideration the space that some camera models need, especially the ones with a slash between the different names, maybe it looks even better organized if there are only two columns instead of three so that each camera model has it's own line. That's of course only a question of taste. You decide. Best wishes. Stillbusy (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Institut National des Arts de Bamako - FYI[edit]

Hi Lopifalko, regarding the name of that institution I did a lot of googling and the name of it isn't exactly straightforward. I'd discussed here already. Happy to hear your take on it. Cheers. SeanMack (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, it's perhaps an improper translation. I've reverted. My preferences is usually for the format "School of Sudanese Craftsmen (now the Institut National des Arts)". I like this advice too: "Keep it simple on the alumni pages and let the debate and history be in the institute page". -Lopifalko (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

José Manuel Rodrigues[edit]

Hi Lopifalko,

Improvements are always welcome but you have drastically reduced the readability of the page, ánd the findability of desired specific data. It is also not a usual way of making lists on Wikipedia, divisions that improve the readability are common. I do not really understand why?? You have also repeatedly deleted facts to be found in the books provided in the footnotes, even though I have the books here in my hand saying the things you deleted. What are we going to do now?

Regards, Anne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneketanneketoverheks (talkcontribs) 18:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

PS. The thing I did really appreciated were the combined links with the ref name tag but now it seems to have stopped functioning: only the first cites all and the latter only the first citation. How is that possible and do you know how to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneketanneketoverheks (talkcontribs) 22:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I will have to deal with one thing at a time, but I will eventually deal with all that you have raised.
  • The combined references appear to be working correctly, I have made normalised them more, take a look to see if they are still broken. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "It is also not a usual way of making lists on Wikipedia, divisions that improve the readability are common." – Look at any of the hundreds of articles on photographers that I and others have formatted and you will see the lists of exhibitions and publications are listed in the manner I have reformulated the Rodrigues article into. I believe a straight list works well, takes up less space than when delineated with years; and I do not see how the lists benefit from being broken up into separate years, it seems pointless, for instance why is it important for people to read them grouped by year? A few of us wrote a definitive syntax for listing photography exhibitions, on a talk page somewhere I will try to find it -Lopifalko (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "You have also repeatedly deleted facts to be found in the books provided in the footnotes, even though I have the books here in my hand saying the things you deleted." – If claims are made then ideally they should be backed up by inline citations, rather than a list of sources at the bottom of the article. I removed some unsourced claims of his work being held in private collections because generally photographer listings include only public collections, but I have no issue with restoring this info if you disagree. I removed the bibliography section because it appeared to be a comprehensive listing of all press articles written about him, and Wikipedia does not make such comprehensive lists, preferring instead to have just a list of selected books. I removed the list of conferences he spoke at (?) because such events are not noteworthy enough for inclusion. I remove the unsourced claims about Perspektief that were written in the style that made me feel they were copied and pasted from Perspektief's own literature. I removed the claim that "the signature under his work has changed occasionally over the years..." because that seemed pointless. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Minna Keene[edit]

A tag has been placed on Minna Keene requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Please go ahead and do so. I mistakenly created it in article space, had meant to do so in draft space, and subsequently moved it to a draft. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Known vandalism?[edit]

You recently reverted my update to Contact print, claiming "Vandalism from known culprit". I find this both offensive and ill-informed. Clearly you have never done any darkroom work with black-and-white paper, or you couldn't have failed to use yellow safelights. In my entire career I have never seen a red safelight.

This is also borne out by the article Safelight. I shall update the entry to refer to this page. Please do not revert it. Please explain, and hopefully apologize for, your claim "Vandalism from known culprit". Groogle (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I'm very sorry about that. I reverted an edit by that appeared to be making a sublte change to an article that did not on the surface appear to be vandalism, but from the brief research I did, did in fact appear to be vandalism. That IP had made other acts of vandalism elsewhere too. I had a few open browers tabs as I went through changes in my watch list. I then came to your edit, and because I have never used a yellow safelight, only red, I quickly thought this was another subtle but wrongful change by that IP I mentioned. I acted too quickly without thinking. I was mistaken in thinking your edit was by that same user. Sorry about that. I have used darkrooms, and never seen a yellow safelight. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Apology accepted. Groogle (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The safelight article does not bear out what you wrote, that "normally it is yellow". -Lopifalko (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It uses the term "amber", which is close enough to "yellow" for me. Looking here and on online shopping sites, it seems that red is more prevalent in the USA than elsewhere. But the principle remains: yellow is sufficient for black and white paper, and since it's brighter, it's more common in my experience. Groogle (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Further reading[edit]

Hi Lopifalko. The essay Wikipedia:Further reading says, "Some editors list sources that they hope to use in the future to build the article in Further reading. This is neither encouraged nor prohibited." That was the spirit in which I added those sources to "Further reading" on Museum of Photographic Arts. Because their placement disturbs you, I've moved them to Talk:Museum of Photographic Arts. The list is intended to be used to improve the article during the Wikipedia:GLAM/Balboa Park/Wiki Culture Crawl edit-a-thon on Friday, an event I hope you'll join in person or virtually. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out "Some editors list sources that they hope to use in the future to build the article in Further reading," I was not aware of that, though in my opinion the talk page is a more appropriate place for storing sources for future use. It does seem appropriate for you to use Further Reading if Wiki Culture Crawl will be using them in the days ahead. I was not aware of Wiki Culture Crawl nor Wikipedia:GLAM, so thank you also for those. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Paolo Monti[edit]

Would you please be so king to explain what you mean by this?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You removed "by one website" from "Paolo Monti (11 August 1908 - 29 November 1982) was an Italian photographer, considered by one website to be one of the most intellectual modern Italian photographic artists." You used the edit summary "haven't you noticed that you removed reliably sourced information?". Your edit summary doesn't reflect your edit. That edit didn't remove information, it added it; it showed that the claim was being made by a single web site. Such a lofty claim requires more and better references. Your edit summary looked disingenuous, as though it was trying to deflect attention from what it was actually doing, which to me seemed to be revising / reverting the previous edit. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
First, as an experienced user, you should know that adding "considered by one website" is not an encyclopedic style. If you have doubts whether Monti is really considered an important photographer you should add a template, not re-add a personal opinion on af idiot. Second, you edit removed (reliably sourced) info that he died in Milan - which I was referring to in my edit summary which you called "deceptive".--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
First, I did not know that about "considered by one website," so thank you for pointing that out. It seemed a reasonable thing to say considering the biographical inflation I see around. I was trigger happy. I am sorry. Second, I am also sorry to have wrongly attributed your edit summary – I am aware of MOS:BIRTHPLACE ("Birth & death places can be in lead if relevant to person's notability, but should not be mentioned in opening brackets of lead sentence alongside birth & death dates."). Your edit had a hallmark of deception to me, but it was not, I should have assumed better intentions and not acted in such haste. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Let me now revert your edit, and I promise to look later today for more sources confirming his notability (I am leaving right now, but will be back in the afternoon). I am also aware about the MOS issue, but taking the place of death down to the article requires altering the prose, for which I likely need more sources, may be in Italian.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I too will also look. I see that the source we have spoken of is at La Gondola and that "He helped found the club La Gondola in 1947". -Lopifalko (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)