User talk:Pinkville

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earlier Discussions ~ Jun 2005–Sep 2006


Contents

[edit] Page numbers in references

Just after removing page numbers from the references (and I don't mean "<references />") in Pierre Rossier, I noticed that you'd very deliberately added them. While you're free to revert me, I'm not going to revert myself; still, I think I should explain my edit.

I'm used to page numbers in references when these indicate the page range of an article within a book or journal. But when they indicate particular pages used within longer pieces (whether articles or entire books), they look very odd to me. Identifying particular pages can be done in footnotes (and in this article it is done in the footnotes, so the page number info is redundant) or with an inline author– date system: "(Himeno 2004, 21–2)".

I've also changed your "cited" to "accessed". The latter could just as well be "downloaded", "consulted", or something else: I'm not keen on "cited" here but don't mind it; my purpose was to free up "cited" for another use (see the reference to the web item by Bennett).

This is of course all extremely trivial. It's a first-rate article. Just think of some way to tie it into something important and relevant, like PlayStation 2 or Paris Hilton, and it's sure to become Featured. -- Hoary 06:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive critique! And for the ameliorating edits and tweaks. My pagination practice is the standard used at work (of which more in another message some time today), but your reasoning is sound, so I won't revert. The same goes for my use of the word "cited", which is the term used in my work, but I agree is somehwat problematic compared to "accessed" here on WP. I had been considering shifting to "accessed", but it slipped my mind...
It's hard to know how to rise to the level of PlayStation 2 and the Great StickInsectHeiress, maybe if I follow the instructions of the caption in the article you linked: Buy Paris Hilton now she could give me a few pointers. Pinkville 15:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeedy: the Judgement of Paris. (Perhaps editing WP is one of her many talents?) As for any other message: if it was via email, I didn't receive it has my employer unplugged the LAN via which I receive mail. I should get it (together with several tons of spam) within the next 48 hours. -- Hoary 23:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes

The talk page of the Beato article now says:

An appropriate infobox needs to be added to this article, or the current infobox needs to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

There isn't any further information of substantive value.

Is it wrong of me to take this to mean: "This article needs to be redesigned to suit the limited attention-span of the kind of Playstation personality who anyway wouldn't be interested"?

Or should one kowtow to WP convention and think of a list, to cover photographers of historical, artistic, documentary, and (most important of all, no doubt) "celebrity" noteworthiness? Something like

  • Best-known books edited by the photographer (in original language(s) if not English):
  • Best-known books edited by the photographer (in English if not original language(s)):

[blah blah blah, until:]

  • Best-known celebs photographed:
  • Favorite film/plate/CCD format(s):
  • Which shoulder more often used for hanging camera: L/R
  • Metering: Incident / Reflected (general) / Reflected (spot) / Guess
  • Proponent of Zone system: Y/N
  • Photographic or other corporations shilled:
  • Coalition of the willies: With us / Against us
  • Gender identification:
  • Shoe size:

[etc]

-- Hoary 23:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha. I can't think how an infobox actually helps anyone at all. But if Time magazine is one's academic ideal, then I suppose that would alter the judgement.
I see the Rossier article has been reassessed from "Start"... to "B". I'm just thrilled! Pinkville 21:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
PS Still no email access here. Damn! -- Hoary 08:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Bummer! Pinkville 21:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Abel was I

Oh dear, I'm afraid that I bit off less than I can chew. I started this in my office, certain that there'd be something about him in the Yale UP red-plate book I'd see when I got home. But there isn't. If you can add something (anything!) about the photo angle, I'll try to dig around in the library for something on the diplomacy. -- Hoary 14:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added what I Cain, but I don't have access to 'my' library for another few days. I'll add more when I have the Good Book. Oh, and hooray for the isotopes. Pinkville 15:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, do you find it sad - as I do - that someone should oppose a FAC based on the presence of a hyphen rather than an endash, and the occurrence of a few red-links (in a field that is still an early work-in-progress)? And such criteria of judgement seem too typical of the comments and votes on the FAC page... Pinkville 16:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sad, yes; surprising, no. Personally (i.e. when I'm not wearing my special "rollback" hat) I'd be inclined to vote against an article when the subject is too banal or when it's obviously a superfluous summary of the kind of pap that's available by the terabyte and quickly found via google. I mean, snore. But I'd be pitting myself against the "consensus".

Holy shinola, how long did it take you to blue all those links? I'd smugly thought a halo was sprouting out of my temples for the bluing of just two links. Take a well-deserved day off, Sir! -- Hoary 08:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A stealth-based game directed by Hideo Kojima. Games have "directors" now? Geez, am I ever hopelessly old fashioned for having doubts about such a notion.
Bluing the links took some time, but not as much as it might seem since the majority of the articles are minor re-writes of each other. Thanks for adding the WP:Project tags - the sort of thing I rarely think to do. Pinkville 11:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yamagishi Shōji

Your list contains this chap. I suppose he's there because of his importance to Japanese photography (by others) -- but do you happen to know whether he was a photographer too?

I'm so jealous of you, dealing with the old geezers. You don't have to invert their names to fit ageing anglophone prejudices (which the Yale UP red-plate book rightly ignores.)

And Today's Important Message is: Beware of Idols! -- Hoary 13:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha! After viewing your improvements to Rossier's and commenting (on your talk page) about name order, I just made this edit. Working on old geezers also gives me much freer rein on photos! Now, Yamagishi as photographer? I don't know. I'd assume not, but then I probably would have assumed the same with Szarkowski, and that would have been a serious error. I'll look into this question on Wednesday when I'm back with my books. Idols and False Prophets. Pinkville 14:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I now find that yes, he was a photographer, for Mainichi Shinbun. I'll continue to look into this. -- Hoary 01:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Classic! This should be interesting. Have you seen any images yet? Pinkville 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. Time permitting, I'll investigate. -- Hoary 03:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ever notice how a rimshot and a camera's shutter clicking have the same rhythm? Pinkville 04:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two more notable Japanese photographers

For your delectation. Or then again perhaps not.

Wow, those are delectable. I think I'll return to washing the dishes, for the moment... Pinkville 02:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yokosuka

Hi Pinkville. Sorry, but I don't quite know who shot the photograph of Yokosoka in the article. Regards, PHG 19:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, you uploaded the image file, though. Where did you find the image? Do you have a link? It's a piece of the puzzle of early Japanese photography that I'm particularly interested in. Thanks. Pinkville 02:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annoying

Don't mess with my page, I was given the "OK" to blank my page an admin. I guess you're not familar with new policy, I already set the last guy straight on the matter. I don't even know you, atleast have the descency to post something in my page, not just appear out of nowhere to edit it, maybe because you disagreed with one of my past comments? Probably. Political correct I imagine? ... this robust remark was posted at 29 October 2006 by Crud3w4re

This is the first time I've been criticised for restoring blanked content. Interesting. Pinkville 11:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette I figured archiving Crud3w4re's warnings would be a nice comprimise. I archive a lot of my info immediately. With an out of sight, out of mind policy. (As a user who has a lot of block history, I know what it is like to have several people tell me what to do--so I can sympathize with Crud3w4re).
As long as Crud3w4re does not delete info, I think Crud3w4re is fine. But I maybe wrong. That said, it is obvious Crud3w4re is attempting to avoid the consequences of these warnings that soil his user account. You probably know wikipolicy more than myself.
I will continue to watch his page, as I am sure you will, if he continues to delete user warnings, we can always report it to WP:ANI.
I really get pissed myself when people mess with my user page, sighting rules. I figured this would be a nice comprimise, to avoid any further punitive actions against Crud3w4re. No one wants an WP:ANI no one wants to be forced to do anything, least of all Crud3w4re. Lets try hard not to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, even if they are breaking the rules. We were both newbs once too.
Let me know what you think. Travb (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, I never "messed with" Crud3w4re's user page, I restored the blanked content (i.e. warnings) on his talk page... The veiled suggestion that I vandalised anything should not be allowed to persist.
I maintain an open mind and I would indeed like to encourage earnest new Wikipedia editors. It's clear from my record that I operate on the assumption of good faith. But good faith doesn't mean blind faith. Crud3w4re has made 94 Wikipedia edits, of which ony 5 have been in the Mainspace (4 of the 5 were minor or later deleted) . The remainder have either been idiosyncratic polemics on race science or blustery defences of his "right" to post such polemics in Wikipedia. His (apparent) first Wikipedia edit was to threaten another user, and claims that he "wasn't aware of the rules of Wiki" are hardly credible - nor a credible defence - in the context of threats. I encourage Crud3w4re to make productive contributions to Wikipedia and I am certainly willing to be astonished but, based on the evidence of his contributions thus far, I really don't expect to be.
Final note, I'm not "upset" or "irrational", I'm concerned. And I can't see my sole comment to Crud3w4re (which appears above) as even vaguely resembling "lashing out". Pinkville 14:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me make my position clear, User:Crud3w4re is a disruptive editor, I was the first person to write on his talk page, warning him. Dispite his disruptive behavior, I think he could potentially become a good editor on wikipedia, as any person can be. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, probably more than he deserves. I am concerned with User:Crud3w4re too. That is why I am watching his page.
I encourage Crud3w4re to make productive contributions to Wikipedia and I am certainly willing to be astonished but, based on the evidence of his contributions thus far, I really don't expect to be.
You are preaching to the choir. I agree whole hardly. Maybe User:Crud3w4re will surprise us and become a solid contributor to wikipedia, but based on the behavior of other disruptive editors I have dealt with in the past, I strongly doubt it. Travb (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw your comments on his talk page, so I know we're basically on the same page. We'll see what happens. Pinkville 15:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A project taking over?

Take a look here. -- Hoary 23:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Gone live! -- Hoary 12:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hooray! Well done! Pinkville 12:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For me, this timing is disastrous. Sorry, I must temporarily drop out. When I come back, I'll see how you've got along along with your templating project (Abbot, Adams....) and carry on a little. G'night! -- Hoary 15:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So far the templating is not problem-free... seems to toy with existing layouts (?), but I'll persevere and see what happens. Sweet dreams, etc. Pinkville 15:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The good thing about WP is that every time I stop for a moment and think I must have gone nuts, I can return and see that others are far, far nuttier than I am. Consider Category:George Harrison articles by quality. -- Hoary 05:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a place for people with nut allergies to visit. In a related (but not at all pertinent) vein, consider this true tale of someone I once knew. Pinkville 03:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I never got a lift in a limo, but I was once given a lift in a Borgward (a very old car even then, but in excellent nick). Oh yes, and I once had dinner with this lady (and another friend of mine).

I'm feeling slightly lonely. I hate to suggest the besmirching of your splendidly austere user page with a graphic, but how about "{{User HOP}}" somewhere? -- Hoary 09:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done!
I'm knackered (and ravenous). Time to go home. I just know you'd love to put just ten minutes of your time into the article that till I got hold of it was dismayingly about "Henri". (Now the second half of it still about "Henri".)
I moved the absurdly long "to-be-improved" list and replaced it with "Henri" and Link (since somebody bothered to ask for him). A bit radical of me, I know. Would you care to add a third, preferably not a photographer but if a photographer then a very different one? I'm sure you can think of something nineteenth-century. -- Hoary 13:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate radical action, I'd say. I'll spend ten minutes - or more - on Hank, and try to come up with another to be improved... Pinkville 13:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Whew, you're going through the alphabet at a great rate. Good, good, but give yourself a day's break, or you'll risk insanity. -- Hoary 15:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't lose something I don't have! Pinkville 15:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serrano

I'm guessing this was not mainly aimed at me, but if you think something was wrong with my remarks, I'd appreciate if you be more specific. - Jmabel | Talk 00:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry to sweep you in with everybody else, obviously you were understandably and earnestly responding to the questions and comments already present on the talk page. I have no problem with that discussion (well, except I disagree vehemently with the anonymous editors), but the article talk page is reserved for discussions of the article, not for discussions of the subject of the article. The latter type of discussion should take place somewhere away from Wikipedia. Pinkville 00:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Faust

Hi, how come Chris Faust is marked stub and ranked stub-class, and not B-class, on your scale? Faust is a recognized and exhibited regional photographer with works in significant collections, but he's not so major a figure that I can easily imagine what additions (or clean-ups, since thie article is pretty clean) would bring it up past stub-status in your impression. best, CHE 00:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing complicated about the stub classification. It's no reflection on his possible capability as a photographer, but only on the article as it now stands. There are no references - apart from Faust's own website - and little to indicate why he is notable, viz. His work appears in a number of restaurants and coffee shops in the St. Paul area. On the other hand, and is held by the permanent collections of the Walker Art Center, Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Weisman Art Museum, and San Francisco Museum of Modern Art is genuinely meaningful, but has he published any books? Is there any critical response to his work? Is there anything to be said about him apart from what he says in his own site? Anything else will likely raise the status of the article from "stub" to "start", but again, it's not a reflection on the merits of the subject matter, only on the article itself. I've written a number of stubs myself that I hope to be able to expand some day. Some of these have already involved quite a lot of research, but their brevity nevertheless demands a stub tag. Pinkville 03:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ECN, HoP, and other acronyms

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I've reverted your edits to Eastman Color Negative and its talk page, for reasons which I've discussed there. Hope that's not a problem. But it might be a good place to start thinking about the project scope for WP HoP in relation to WP Filmmaking. My take on the matter is that while concepts which clearly are common to the two (stop bath, for example), should be covered by both, but concepts and technologies which are solely employed by motion pictures should be out of HoP scope. I understand that technically all cinematographic principles are considered a subset of photography at large, but I'm presuming that HoP is explicitly and colloquially used to denote still photography.

Also - and this is simply my opinion on the matter - I think that WP Photography is probably wrongly named, because that project is really a Wikipedia maintenance project (expanding articles with photos), whereas a WikiProject bearing that name should be about editing the articles covering the subject of photography - which I presume is why HoP was created. Ideally, I think you HoP guys should be allowed to take that name, while the Photography project should be renamed something like WP Article Photography or WP Wiki Photography - or perhaps even consider merging with WP Illustration, which functions to maintain all images within the wiki and is still a very active project. Not certain what your thoughts are on the matter, but I hope that we are somewhat of the same mind, since it's irksome that you guys at HoP were forced to chose a name that's slightly too specific. Anyway, best of luck and hope to talk soon! Girolamo Savonarola 17:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries on the reversion. I've been proceeding on the basis of inclusiveness, since I'm not a specialist in the distinctions between the chemistry/technical aspects of filmmaking versus photography. I figured the safest approach would be to add teh HoP template to all articles that have been categorised as subjects in photography and let the expert editors decide on the applicability of the template at a later date.
On the second point, I agree completely, it's a shame such a [WP] specific project came to use the most general term imaginable. But since that's the case, I think it would be more trouble than it's worth to refine the two projects' names, diverting our respective energies from proceeding with the projects themselves. Thanks for the thoughtful note. Until next time! Pinkville 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No worries, then! Having had to populate a project with talk page templates myself, I completely understand. As far as the project names go...would you mind if I kicked up a fuss, then? I do understand the desire to keep the energies well-focused, but I think that this is worth it for several reasons - possible merging of Photography with Illustration (also regrettably misnamed), avoiding HoP having a dispute about scope with someone on the basis that its name implies a limited scope to history, and ease of use for editors, amongst many others. Girolamo Savonarola 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
First, I've mentioned this discussion to the other participants in the WP Project: History of Photography, since they obviously ought to have a chance to weigh in on your proposition as well. Second, I agree with your reasoning, but I'm still leary about the effort that may be required (if name changes were accepted) to change all the implicated links in these two projects. But then, maybe there are programming and mark-up short cuts that I (not surprisingly) know nothing about that would expedite such a process... Why don't we move this discussion to the Project talk page, see what others think, and then approach the WP Project: Photography folks if necessary. Thanks again for your helpful thoughts and suggestions. Pinkville 00:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree the more general title should apply to the HoP project as it is broader in scope. I would want to make this change with as little controversy as possible. I don't think we should usurp the title of the other project without their consent and agreement. Also, I want to make sure our limited time is spent improving the articles and adding knowlege to Wiki, not making purely formatting changes. SteveHopson 01:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Steve, if you don't mind I'm going to copy your reply to the appropriate section on the Project talk page. Pinkville 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thx

Hi Pinkville

Thanks for your nice comment on my 1a thing. You look like a serious copy-editor ... perhaps I should place you on my secret list! I'd seen the first link before; interesting, and I may insert it. The anagram and foreign script links aren't really focused enough on the objectives of the article.

Cheers

Tony 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe we share an interest in improving the quality of writing in WP, so if I can help you in any way I'd be happy to do so, as long as I can call on you! Actually, we've crossed paths before but I don't recall the circumstances... I added the anagram and Omniglot links more for general interest (the latter link has come in handy for editing WP articles, but not so much with regard to writing style). I have found Common English Errors quite helpful (as it were). Ciao! Pinkville 15:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ezra Stoller

Hey Pinkville, thanks again for starting that article. Could you explain to me how to use the LOC link, or provide me a direct link? I couldn't find him on there. Regards, DVD+ R/W 09:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, your Farsari article is looking good. DVD+ R/W 09:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You bet. The LOC site is difficult to link to - I haven't been able to find a way to link directly to a page, which is why I link to the home page. That said, the method is: go to home page and click Search Authorities; enter the name of the person (family name - comma - given name) in the Search Text window, select Name Authority Headings in the Search Type window and click Begin Search; you will see an alphabetical list of identical or similar names - those marked Authorized Heading are the accepted form of names, those marked References are variants that will lead you to the Authorized Heading, those unmarked are simply listings without further information; click on the Authorized Heading red button next to the name you're checking (identical names for different people will sometimes show birth/death dates to aid identification, otherwise you'll have to check one by one); the name will again appear, click on it and you will be taken to the full record: the name variant on the line marked Heading and also on the line marked 100 (or any number in the hundreds) is the authorized variant, unauthorized variants are shown on lines numbered in the 400s, biographical information sometimes appears on the lines after; you can also then click on Labelled display for a less confusing layout.
Thanks re: the Farsari article. I wrote the version in the mainspace that failed FAC, so I've been expanding it on my user subpages... It should appear some time soon. If you have any suggestions for improvements, etc. please let me know! Ciao. Pinkville 11:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the LOC search worked this time. Thanks again, this time for explaining. I'm wanting to see a portrait of Farsari in the article, but I'd understand if there isn't one available. DVD+ R/W 04:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Some entries in LOC authorities can be confusing, so feel free to ask for a hand if you have any trouble. By the way, you can also search for titles of subjects, names of places and buildingings, etc. by entering the term in the Subject Authority Headings window. That's how I found the authority for "My Lai Massacre" (vs. "My Lai massacre" and "Son My Massacre"), for example. Same search procedure applies as for Names Authorities. Also, you'll notice that your session times out after only a moment or two of inactivity and you'll have to start from square one. Yeah, to my knowledge there is no (known) portrait of Farsari, unfortunately. Pinkville 11:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] watermarks

Pinkville, I just noticed that some of the Farsari images are watermarked, like Image:Farsari album cover.jpg, has a blurry "www.mfa.org" in the upper left, and Image:Farsari Daibutsu.jpg has "L19 DAI BUTSU (A)" in the lower right. If you want help clone-tooling over these, I will do it- you probably know how yourself though. Do you think they should stay on the pictures? DVD+ R/W 03:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha, no I haven't a clue how to cover over such marks (I don't have Photoshop anyway, if that's what's required). I'd be happy if you could conceal the marks that refer to the modern source collections (e.g. "www.mfa.org"), but not the marks that Farsari's studio added to the images (e.g. "L19 DAI BUTSU (A)", "F29 GIONMACHI KIOTO", etc.). I mention the latter inscriptions in the article and such marks can be important for helping to identify the photographer of an image. Thanks so much for your help! Pinkville 13:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll do it later, these would be pretty easy and could be done in Paint. I can't believe you don't know how to doctor a photo when you have a WikiPhD in history of photography! DVD+ R/W 01:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay - I've been in mental hiatus... I can crop a photo, I can make a coloured one b/w or sepia, but that's about it. I used to have Photoshop, back when I had a Mac Performa (i.e., the olden days), but I haven't had any serious image editing software since about 2001. I guess my WikiPhD really is all theory and no practice! Pinkville 14:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I uploaded the image files again after simply cropping the watermarks. They look much better, I think. Pinkville 02:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artsojourner

I am very glad you took the steps you did on my behalf. I was really not aware that I had put things in un-alphabet order though. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I am very very dyslexic but I do try my best.

Examples would be to spell 5 as 5ive and to spell 4 as 4our. Sad but true. Thank you again. I am very interested in fleshing out many other artists too. I like the subject of Book Arts but there isn't alot about thid more obscure area of art. I will do my best with Manual of Style too.

Best, Artsojourner 22:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand the difficulties that dyslexia pose, good for you for persevering. If you want someone sympathetic to look over anything you have questions about, I'd be happy to help. And I'll call on you when necessary, too. Sound good? One last note, I still don't understand why you removed names (and other information) from the List. Pinkville 01:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am still trying to figure out if I moved any names at all Maybe if you go through the history you can find out what happened.

Thank you for the advice and being there if I need you and please dont hesitate to ask if you think I can be a help. Artsojourner 07:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you take a look at this edit you will see the changes you made in the right hand column and the previous editor's version in the left hand column. You can easily see your removal of "land" from Ansel Adams, the complete removal of Darogha Ubbas Alli, the shifting of John Harrington to a spot at the end of the photographers with names starting with "H", and the complete removal of Michael Kenna, Margrethe Mather, Johannes Pääsuke, and others. All these changes are highlighted. Is that of help? Pinkville 15:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is strange to me Was I half asleep? I do have a habit of opening several wiki pages at once but I do better with only one page at a time. I will make a note of it. Please bare with me. I honestly dont remember doing this removal thing at all . Thanks though. Again many thanks. Artsojourner 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. All the best. Pinkville 18:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friedrich Albert Schwartz

Here is another photographer article you might want to start and add to your list. Friedrich Albert Schwartz, there is an article on de, de:Friedrich Albert Schwartz, and a gallery at the commons, commons:Friedrich Albert Schwartz. Best, DVD+ R/W 01:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can do - though on first look I can't find much on Schwartz in English. Pinkville 22:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Isaacs

  • Keep Isaacs is my vote. This photographer is quite notable. Editor Hoary decided long ago he didn't want Isaacs' on WP for whatever reason. We both obviously see, along with others, that Isaacs work is as notable as half of the photographers on WP whether its art photography and/or commercial photography. I fleshed out alot of this article but I do understand to google Lee Isaacs is not easy since alot of people have his first and last name as a middle name and last name. I have a book here, UPsouth, that has many examples of his work. This is a Warhol project grant through Space One Eleven. He is in good company as far as the notoriety of the other artists here is concerned. Emma Amos and bell hooks are in the book along with Willie Cole and Marie Weaver. Cole is the only other male in this project. Maybe someone could sift through some of this. Artsojourner 05:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
There are quite a few responses to this message that come to mind, but I'll try to confine myself to the most pressing.
Lee Isaacs article for deletion This article is (at best) a borderline case for keeping, in my opinion. If we keep the article, it goes some way to expanding the criteria of notability. You should compare the careers and reputations of a random sample of photographers whose names appear on the List of photographers with Lee Isaacs. Of course he's not comparable to Diane Arbus or Eugène Atget, but is he comparable to Darogha Ubbas Alli who, though not at all well-known, is notable for having been an early Indian photographer and for having produced two important photographic albums? Or what about Roy Arden? There's hardly anything in his article (only four sentences!), yet it mentions his two solo exhibitions, and that his work is included in the collections of MoMA and was featured in MoMA's post-expansion inaugural exhibition. Does Isaacs compare with Alli or Arden? I believe the answer must be "no". You can compare with many more figures on the list - and some of those may be closer in notability to Isaacs than the four I've mentioned, but perhaps any such figures should also be considered for deletion? Otherwise, as I said, the criteria for notability will have become expanded to the point where the term is no longer meaningful. The information on Isaacs as currently presented in the article describes people he has worked with or for, a publication and exhibition he was a part of, people he studied with, etc. but little about him or his own work. Has he had a solo exhibition or publication? Is he known in his own right? Nothing in the article suggests that he is - at least yet. Maybe he will be notable one day, but even the article you've worked hard on describes Isaacs more in terms of who he knows than in his own terms. That is one reason why there are objections to keeping the article at all. At the moment it is like having on article on someone like me; I've worked with some notable people (some even have Wikipedia articles), I have participated in various exhibitions, I've been published in an anthology of short stories, etc. But I hardly think I've done anything that would be of interest to someone consulting a serious encyclopaedia. Please read again the page on notability for a better understanding of how the term applies to Wikipedia biography articles.
Hoary You seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot with Hoary, but I'd recommend finding the right foot before you alienate one of the more serious, thoughtful and helpful editors in Wikipedia. It's well worth remembering the Wikipedia credo of assuming good faith on the part of other editors, and I can assure you that in his dealings with you (and every other editor I have seen him deal with) Hoary has acted in good faith. It is unfair to characterise his comments and actions as arbitrary and prejudiced (as you do above), or "like a bull in a china shop" and "gross and unrefined" (as you do on his talk page) and I can't imagine that you think he would and should continue to respond patiently and kindly to such characterisations. He and others have provided numerous explanations of their actions in listing the Isaacs article for deletion (in fact, for discussion on whether it should be deleted) and changes to other articles you have worked on. Also, I don't see any of Hoary's or anyone else's comments to you as reason to be defensive, or to be taken personally, or as anything more than seriously intended editorial criticism (not condemnation) of work that is, by its presence in Wikipedia, necessarily collaborative. Hoary has gone over articles I've written with the same sharp eye for errors and shortcomings of one kind or another, and always in a spirit of good-humoured, collaborative perfectionism. I have disagreed with some of his changes or suggestions, but since he and I both know we are essentially on the same page it is usually quite easy to resolve these differences, to compromise, or to comfortably defer to his (or my) preference. There is no reason you couldn't form the same sort of editorial relationship with him.
I think that's most of what I need to say at the moment, but I hope you'll consider the situation carefully before relations worsen. Of course, if I can clarify anything for you or be of any help to you I am happy to do so. Pinkville 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uh oh, here's another

One more for your watchlist. -- Hoary 08:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Gadzooks! Thanks! Pinkville 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the Martin Perreault debate

Hello. You made the following comment (following me saying I didn't have a certain article yet) in the deletion talk page:

See, I have a problem with this. I have worked on a number of articles about notable - if not well-known - photographers (try Pierre Rossier, Ueno Hikoma, Uchida Kuichi, et al) and I didn't start their articles until I could be "more substantial" by having their work in hand. It takes some effort to produce a worthy article for an encyclopaedia, and it shouldn't be otherwise. Pinkville 02:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to reply on said deletion discussion page, since we are no longer supposed to edit it. I just wanted to say I found your comment a bit.. off. I didn't start the article, and a deadline was created for the page's staying up. With this deadline looming, the page having been created by someone else, and a reference that I knew was coming to me but I could not use immediately because I hadn't read it yet, I think my comment about said reference was made in good faith and was valid. Observer31 08:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Sloppy writing on my part. Although I was responding to your comment, my comment was really directed at others who would start and develop an article without putting a priority on providing at least one solid reference source. Sorry for leaving the impression that I was including you in that category! Pinkville 13:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Apology accepted! I think that 2 main factors contributed to this unfortunate incident (I mean the whole article). One, many new editors see what wikipedia is, not what it is supposed to be, and don't grasp the importance of proper referencing, or the wikipedian meaning of notability. Second, it is a lot harder in certain fields to achieve "wikipedian" notability than others. Observer31 21:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree entirely with your points. Many new editors also don't look closely enough at existing articles (notably GAs and FAs) in their field of interest. Unfortunately. Pinkville 22:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pill popping

Pink, I see that you too are popping pills [NB link comes with sleazoid popup]. -- Hoary 06:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Gee, Canadians are better known for selling perscription drugs across the border than for buying them. Well bugger that! Now I have to sully my user page with one of those warnings. Thanks for the tip-off! Pinkville 13:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Turk

I was thinking of throwing The Turk to the wolves, sorry I mean putting it up as a FAC. Anything that should be done to it beforehand? -- Hoary 15:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I last looked at it a week ago and thought it very good indeed, so let me have a gander again in the next 24 hours. Such an interesting subject and article! Pinkville 01:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Bass

In no way was I trying to make you or your edits seem less than they are. There are some editors on here who shall be unnamed that seem to follow me around and tear down and insult what I add to WP. These same editors have, over and over, given me grief for no good reason. First, I do not add things on here that are false and I hope any and all of my edits are never misleading. Second, I have read many of your edits and I understand them. You dont shirk your responsibilities and delete things inside of digging deeper. I commend your work and I hope that I do the same type of work as you do but there are some people on here who dont feel a responsibility or a respect for other editors work and that is why I made the statement that i did. These editors know who they are. I know other people who have been run off by them. they seem to be nothing more than bullies. I will not be run off. I just hope I can continue to do good work and I hope I have never slighted you in the least as that was not my intention at all. Artsojourner 16:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General note: Assume good faith on Talk:African_American_Vernacular_English#Of_attribution_and_crackpots.undefined

[edit] February 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:African_American_Vernacular_English#Of_attribution_and_crackpots. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I made no comment regarding your motives or anyone else's motives on the page you've linked. I did characterise your position re: AAVE as "irrational", and I stand by that characterisation. To any other readers of my talk page: I encourage you to follow the link that Wikidudeman has provided and judge for yourselves whether there's any point in my comments where I have failed to assume good faith. Pinkville 12:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about Mr.Vertigo. You said "Incidentally, Mr. Vertigo has removed this article from the mediation list. I guess we're all mediated? His work here is done, and now doody calls elsewhere. Pinkville 12:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)" Wikidudeman (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and how does that comment run counter to "Assume Good Faith"? I simply pointed out that he had abandoned the mediation - I suggested nothing about his motives. Pinkville 11:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your tone was condescending and implied he didn't care about the mediation or was somehow bias. Especially your "his 'doody' calls elsewhere" remark.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're stretching very hard for that. And my tone was dismissive and sardonic - nothing to do with not assuming good faith. Since the issue that was raised for mediation has not been resolved, Steververtigo's dropping of the case does indeed suggest that he didn't care for it. Today he's made several comments suggesting he's not interested in pursuing this issue any further. Pinkville 12:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Karel van den Broek

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Jan Karel van den Broek, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 05:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help

im doing a project about the KIO towers and i really need help about their structure so if u can message me bak asap to staygeek@hotmail.com i will be glad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:195.69.210.2 (talk • contribs).

There's already an article on Puerta de Europa, i.e. Torres KIO, Madrid. But if i can help you, I'd be happy to. Pinkville 22:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yokosuka

Hi Pinkville! It's be quite a while since I uploaded the image "Yokosuka", and I am afraid I have lost trace of the source. I think it was a book on ancient Japanese photography. Regards PHG 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Too bad. Thanks for checking into it. Pinkville 17:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consenus

Hey Pink, do you have any consenus? If you do, let me know: I'll then ignore it. Dig the groovy new addition to my user page ("The true Hoary revealed!"). -- Hoary 23:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a terrible case of consenus not too long ago... I was laid up for two weeks!
But, be honest (you can tell me). You must have given Brettr something in return for that fine new bio-blurb you added to your userpage, right? Brettr outdid him/herself on that - especially considering the sharply contrasting nature of her/his own self-description. Pinkville 00:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/i/n/User_talk%7EPinkville_fa4e.html"