User talk:SteadyDietofNothing

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

"Fuck you heroes"[edit]

In this edit, you remove a "notability" warning, with the odd edit summary of "updates". What are these updates? -- Hoary (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

i tried adding the book cover back, and i considerdd taking off that sign as an update since the book is notable, has been in publication for over a decade and the author is well known. What else is needed to know a book is "notable"?

What's written about the book on itself doesn't matter. If you can find a source for the claim that the book has been in print for over a decade, that certainly would be a start. (By itself, though, it wouldn't show anything -- it might just mean that it hadn't sold well.) Best would be to cite critical discussion of the book, particularly reviews of it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? go look at amazon.com, google the book title and see the library's around the world that keep in available, or go to the authors own website for press archive on the book that dates back to 1994 to the present all ways mentioning the classic book. before you attempt to discredit this book or any of the artist's importance why don't you do a little research yourself please. if you are really lazy you can start here: http://www.burningflags.com/press/

now go remove your "notability warning" - and once your done with that why don't you add his book covers up for all the titles ;-) thank you

OK, I accept it: I'm really lazy. Maybe you are too. But you and I differ: Friedman's only a name to me (plus what I read on the page about him), whereas you seem to be an enthusiast. So if evidence for the notability of the book is so abundant, put it into the article.
(If you were to claim that this article is no better than many others on photo books, I'd have to agree. The Pencil of Nature, Tulsa and others I've glanced at don't give any reason for us to believe what they say.)
Meanwhile, if anyone's attempting to discredit the book, it's not me. As I've said, I know little about it. I'm openminded and have invited you to tell me more.
Tell you what: if you try to knock this article into better shape I'll then try to do the same for one among three choices you make among this lot. Is that reasonable or what? -- Hoary (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds fair but you still did not delete the notability tag? i am pretty new to this and don't plan on spending too much time here, but if you can give me a good example on how to do this properly, i'd be glad to. And what about adding the book covers up for all his titles and allowing some one else to post the "review" or what would you properly term them? should i get the descriptions from his website, Amazon, Google or what do you suggest? thanks. good night for now.

Right then, I'll have a bash with Tulsa. But the start will have to wait a few (10?) hours because it's been a long day and I'm falling asleep now. I don't know how successful I can be because I don't have access to US magazines published in 1971; still, I'll try.
I'm not quite sure what you have in mind with book covers but whatever it is it would be unlikely to work: the covers would only be permissible via "WP:FAIR" but this pretty much says that you have to discuss a fair-use image if you're going to add it. -- Hoary (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


I'll look forward to your lead, it's much nicer to be on the same team isn't it? btw. i believe it is fair use to use any COVERS records or books becuse it is what publicizes the books aor records, it is how they are known and marketed, and to share those images as such, not in a way you are profiting from, but indeed promoting them it's totally legal and accepted in the industry. you should be able to snatch those jpegs from Amazon .com or the burningFlags.com books section. i just don't know how to add book covers or pictures to wikipedia. thanks! no rush btw. busy week here.

oh, btw. are you saying i can just put up a book review from any number of sources here and that would be good enough as long as they are footnoted properly? That would be easy ;-)

Yup, let's get cracking together. (Except that I need masses of sleep first.)
No, sorry, this business about "fair use" of images that are copyright (and not copyleft) is really a minefield. If you think that preparing text for WP is a bitch you'll change your mind about it when you get to images. Just forget it, or anyway put it on hold.
I'll do Tulsa (or try to). (Actually I've already made a little start.) Then you do Fuck You Heroes (or try to). I'll help you. Then, when that article's more solid, I'll add the image for it. The hoops I'll jump through to make that happen will amuse or dismay you. If you're still up for it, you can try the same for other images. But if you attempt to add lots of images now, I can guarantee that within 48 hours you will be getting nasty warning messages and will be cursing people. (Hint: look here.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


go to s l e e p - i swear i've seen the book and record cover rational up here on the fair usage pages before, we'll see, thanks

G'morning! Tulsa is still rough, but I think (and hope) it's better. -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

that's pretty impressive i think, good one. you'll have to give me a few days at least to get this one up to par with that. I had no idea these pages on books were to be filled with so much more information other than the book itself. busy week like i said before, but i will get to this as soon as i can. thanks

As I've said, I don't know FYH. (I'm not the slightest bit squeamish about the word "fuck"; I just want to abbreviate.) I think I saw it in a bookstore some years ago, but I could be confusing it with something else and anyway I hardly remember the book that I did see. So I don't know such simple things as whether "Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, Minor Threat, The Misfits, Bad Brains and Fugazi, and [...] Public Enemy, Ice-T, Beastie Boys and Run-D.M.C" are explicitly identified via captions or similar. If they aren't, then a strict interpretation of WP:V would demand independent evidence (groan) that these people appear. However, you don't have to go to such extremes. The problematic bits are elsewhere, for example: one of the few photojournalists to document the American underground music scene during the days when punk rock was just beginning to galvanize itself into a social movement. Honestly I can't see how punk rock was ever a "social movement". But that aside, to say that Friedman was one of the few people to do this is an assertion that does need backing up, and not merely from what's written by its publisher or some other person with a clear [financial] interest in his work or this book. I'm not saying that the assertion is untrue (actually I guess that it is true), merely that it needs backup. Of course there's no huge rush, just some time in the next few days if you can. -- Hoary (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

all your comments seem quite reasonable if not easy considering the many credible reviews this book has had over the years that even i've seen. But one thing that does disturb me is that you don't understand how punk rock was a social movement. I don't want this to get personal, but if you are interested it's quite well documented in many ways to be a social movement. What were you thinking? that it was only a style of music or fashion? It was very politically and artistically motivated by many of its original enthusiasts and practitioners (late 1970's -early '80's. In fact this is what drew me to it. i'll get on this ASAP.

OK, i started something, please don't kill me, i found these great reviews and broke them up a bit, not sure if this is what you meant, but please feel free to help out if you are so inclined. btw, by reading them maybe you'll now understand a bit more of why i was so surprised by the noteworthy heading attached before, thanks again. good day. (can't believe i did all this today).

There's lots of energy and additional content there. Good.
But look, it's not enough like an encyclopedia article, too much like advertising copy. Example:
From his earliest days as a 14-year-old skateboarder photographing top 70's skate icons like Jay Adams and Tony Alva, to his documentation of the burgeoning early-80s hardcore punk scene (captured in the '82 cult soft-cover classic My Rules), to his high-profile work as a renowned hip-hop photographer (most notably, the legendary album jackets for Ice-T's Power and Public Enemy's Yo, Bum Rush the Show), ...
(my emphases)
Adams and Alva were (are?) skateboarders; if My Rules is a "cult classic" how come there's no article about it; it's not clear what "high-profile" means other than "known", and we know that he's known from the fact that he has an article; the jacket photography for Power and Yo! Bum Rush the Show is so "legendary" that, uh, neither article even mentions the photography. So I'd reword that as:
From his earliest days as a 14-year-old skateboarder photographing other skateboarders like Jay Adams and Tony Alva, to his documentation of the burgeoning early-80s hardcore punk scene (collected in the '82 softcover My Rules), to his work as a hip-hop photographer (most notably, the jackets for Ice-T's Power and Public Enemy's Yo! Bum Rush the Show, ...
Hoary (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


OK, this is where it gets difficult. None of that was my opinion, other than the fact i found the words in press articles. Jay Adams and Tony alva are icons, there are movies made about them, documentary and fiction, both are still written about today, 30 years later, Friedman also has a co-authored book published mainly about them. And those album covers too, both written about extensively at the time, if you are a fan of hip-hop you would know. just because there are no wiki articles mentioning the photography does not mean it is not so. Is wiki the end all bearer of truth that anything that is written in Wiki? I thought it was not supposed to reference itself? Even other rappers mentioned the Power album photography in their songs' and the Yo! Bum Rush the SHow" album cover photo has even been talked about by art critics! so why dlete it from the article? we were quoting an article. My Rules also is a cult classic, but again this is the word of the writer from Paper Magazine not me, and that writer wrote a book on Punk, he would know, not to mention that My Rules over 25 years later sells for 20-100 times more that it originally cost when it came out, on e-bay and on Amazon when they have one (I know this because i tried purchasing one a few month back and it was a bit much for me). So since none of these quotes was my opinion and all were from the footnoted sources, how do we keep the excitement and opinion of the press without seeming like an advertisement? That is the main question now from me, if the length of all those quotes is not too much. The way you watered down Adams and Alva is an example of going way to far, since like i said they are icons, Firedman was a skater too, but Alva and Adams are not in the same class since they indeed are icons, see the movies Dogtown and Z-Boys and The Lords of Dogtown, both of these movies use Adams and Alva as their main characters, not to mention all the press they have both had from the 70's to this day. So what do we do? I mean i can see what you are saying to some degree for sure, i tried not to make it sound like an advert, since this is what Wiki folks dislike the most, but how do we ballance the real words of published pieces in national and international press without it becoming out opinion? thanks. good night.


btw. I just went and checked Power (Ice T album) here on Wikipedia and indeed in the 1st few lines it does mention Friedman's photography! so why did you say it did not?

Sorry, I missed that. It does indeed mention the photography. Or actually it mentions a model's "provocative pose". This is all very odd, as (so far as I can judge from the miniature reproduction there) the photography looks very conventional indeed, and for that matter the model's pose is very conventional too: it's just that she's got the swimwear later made famous in Borat, covering her nipples but not her entire tits. (A certain class of Americans still seem capable of working themselves into frenzies over women's tits; perhaps they haven't realized that the US is awash in photographic reproductions of human naughty bits, so a couple more tits on display are unlikely to bring on Armageddon.)
OK, this is where it gets difficult. Yes indeedy. Jay Adams and Tony alva are icons, there are movies made about them, documentary and fiction, both are still written about today, 30 years later, Friedman also has a co-authored book published mainly about them. But WtF does "icon" mean? Sure, magazine articles about pop culture (and not only pop culture) love to bandy it around. Let's provisionally take it to mean "very famous" and accept that Adams and Alva are very famous. So why are we saying here that Adams and Alva are very famous? If they're very famous people will already know this and won't need to be told; but whatever they are, people can click on those links for them and find out.
Is wiki the end all bearer of truth that anything that is written in Wiki? I thought it was not supposed to reference itself? You're right: you have to write an article as if all the others are worthless (and indeed many are worthless). Even other rappers mentioned the Power album photography in their songs' and the Yo! Bum Rush the SHow album cover photo has even been talked about by art critics! so why dlete it from the article? I wasn't suggesting that. I was asking what's legendary about them. If art critics have said interesting things about one or both, then feel free to summarize what they said.
My Rules also is a cult classic, but again this is the word of the writer from Paper Magazine not me, and that writer wrote a book on Punk, he would know, not to mention that My Rules over 25 years later sells for 20-100 times more that it originally cost when it came out, But again, what does "cult classic" actually mean? That a smallish percentage of people like it an awful lot? Then cite evidence showing this. Selling 20 times the original price; yes, I know of quite a few photo books like this: one that I actually possess (because I bought it new, at list price) is Kurata's Flash Up; I wrote the article on Kurata but I'd never call his book a "cult classic" because, to me at least, terms like that reek of the way the advertising industry markets DVDs and so on to people who like to think of themselves as part of a counterculture. (Incidentally, I'm not boasting about possessing Flash Up; rather, I'm kicking myself for not having bought lots of copies of Fukase's Karasu, which I thought of buying at the time but didn't buy, and which goes for about 80 times its list price.)
how do we keep the excitement and opinion of the press without seeming like an advertisement? Good question. We ditch the excitement and give the opinion; if the opinion is expressed well, the reader will feel the excitement. I haven't done this well for Tulsa (which might have some similarities to FYH) but I've tried. -- Hoary (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


thanks for your time. so are you now saying that we should tone down all the "extra extra" found in the reviews and keep everything else verbatim from the original reviews or just cut and past what seems to fit the Wiki way best? Is what's up now too long? or do you think the more the better?

and how do we get the book covers up? what di you decide to do about that, did you see (as i did one a while back) notice that covers can be used fairly?

No, quotation/summary is the same for Wikipedia as it is for classwork: you summarize wherever you can; and when you don't summarize and quote instead, you use quotation marks scrupulously and you don't mess around with what's written, other than with square brackets and ellipses.
I'm sure that there's a page about this somewhere on Wikipedia but I don't have time to look for it right now, sorry. (I'd start by clicking on WP:MOS and look at the links to advice on particular areas.)
Yes, book covers can indeed be used fairly. But it's important to note that this doesn't mean that any use of a book cover that you or I think is fair, and that any reasonable copyright holder would think is fair, is actually "fair use" according to WP's understanding. You have to make sure it's "fair use" according to a bizarrely tight interpretation, and you have to explain this.
You could add the cover of FYH to the article on FYH. You could add the covers of one or two books by GF to the article on GF. But if you added a "gallery" of book covers to the article on GF, its talk page would soon show a collection of stern messages from various "bots", and one way or another most of the images would eventually be removed and you'd have wasted your time.
So start with this article. Find an image, use a graphics program to make it small. Use the link "Upload file" to upload it. You'll be asked various questions; answer them real seriously. You'll also be asked to provide a "fair use rationale" for use in the article on FYH. Avoid the temptation to reply "It's obvious why, you moron", or "What a stupid question, you must have an IQ below 60." Just grit your teeth and answer very earnestly, as if you were trying to humor somebody who might give you an enormous pile of money or whatever if you succeeded. Read the instructions on how to do this, but also click on one or two images that have been in other articles for some time without incident. (Here's one that I uploaded, with a dangerously short rationale; here's another, in the longwinded style that WP favors.)
Sorry, the "real world" beckons. -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've looked again at the article, and it's a chrestomathy of enthusiasm from others, much of which seems to come via "A Customer" (of unknown reliability), writing in an Amazon page.

This is not an article. By contrast, Tulsa (though not much good) is an article: I read stuff, I summarized it (ignoring buzzwords like "icon" and instead looking for actual content), I cited it.

Come on, you can do better with FYH. Maybe not today, but some time very soon. -- Hoary (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

yes better work could be done for sure, i just had no idea where to start, but indeed i did not take those quotes from amazon, besides those are for FUCK YOU TOO on Amazon, friedman's second book, not for HEROES, i got the quotes directly from the press pieces i found on line at the burning flags press site which is a great archive of lots of friedman pieces, which made finding valid pieces quite easy, check it out when you have time. I will attempt to tighten all that up as you suggest in coming weeks.
as far as posting the photo of the cover of Heroes Wiki would not allow me to do it since i guess i'm too new? thanks as usual.

Some of the stuff in what was the first paragraph looked like a quotation, so I googled for it. Google had one hit for it: the Amazon page on that other book by GF.

I've now been to the BF press press page. Yes, it's a handy list. It links for example to this. So here's a good way to refer to that:

<ref>Steven Blush, "Subterranean homesick blues", Paper, September 1994; available here at burningflags.com (accessed June 23 2008).</ref>

Hoary (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:001_0964191601_.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:001_0964191601_.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)