User:Hoary/Archive26

Arab Brazilians again mushrooming into 10+ millions...

Here. And here, here, and here.

Can you do something about this, please?

Why do people believe in such absurds? Ninguém (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please be civil

Comments such as this] are very blatantly not civil. There's one very obvious reason why we should capitalize Japanese book titles and such the same as English-language titles when romanizing or translating them into English: because that's the way English-language does it and it allows people to easily tell it's the title of a book at a glance. It's standard English-language practice, and since this is the English Language Wikipedia, we should therefore follow those other existing guidelines. It's fine if you don't like it, but please stop throwing hissy fits about it every chance you get. I'd rather you work with the rest of the project rather than against it by doing things like this. ···

Well, Joe, if Oh I see: [link to diff] WP:MOSJA decrees (yet again) that Japanese should pretend to be English is "very blatantly not civil", then I am a great geyser (or old geezer) of very blatant incivility. A charge that leaves me untroubled. To quote somebody far greater than myself: "I've been accused of a lot of dreadful things, but never of maintaining a civil tone." Though you know, I'd always thought that blatant incivility was a bit more, well, blatant. (Standards may differ, of course.) Now, if I throw "hissy fits", you may choose to think that these are a result of neurological damage caused by excessive consumption of cocaine or that I am four-legged -- all of this is inferred from my edits by somebody identifying himself as a published scholar in

this nutty talk page archive (search within it for "cocaine" or "dog"). But perhaps a "hissy fit" is in the eye of the beholder (and I've never stuck anything up my nose, or wanted to). "Working against the project" sounds like a charge leveled between cult members, but anyway in the last couple of days I flatter myself that I've made "obi (publishing)" slightly less grotesque (though still terrible), created a little article on "Steidl", and greatly amplified "Toyoko Tokiwa". -- Hoary (talk

) 05:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

MEN! Stop it both of you, U Sam and John B. It looks like おバカが二人。WPは幼稚園じゃありません。まったくもう！ あきれ果てて言葉が出ないわ。You two must be the most reliable admins and friends for me and WikiProject Japan. Hoary, was I uncivil to call you gaijin in my edit summary? I also call you two バカ. But please do not take it out on me. Oda Mari (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mari! Gaijin is a standard Japanese word; I think it only offends those gaijin who like to imagine slights and then to moan about them. And it's always refreshing to be called baka. (Isn't incivility fun? If you keep calling me names, I might quote you on my user page.) Yes, I'm an admin. But Nihonjoe is a bureaucrat; he's got more superpowers! -- Hoary (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

While I want both of you to stop 水掛け論 full of 嫌味, I imagine it would be fun if two of you'd block each other. I also think to nominate you two at here. Oda Mari (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be impossible for each of us to block the other, at the same time, anyway. Oh, X could block Y; Y could appeal on his talk page; Z could unblock Y; and Y could thereupon block X -- but that wouldn't be funny any more. Best thing for you as an interested observer to do would be to bring this matter up on

WP:AN/I, appealing for a third party to block us both. I've never been blocked and -- hang on while I check -- neither has he. It would be an interesting experience for both of us. Admins are two a penny and I think routinely get blocked (for smoking dope, mooning people, and so on, or anyway their WP equivalents), but bureaucrats are rather rarer. (I notice that the famous WP personality Essjay twice blocked himself, once for 17 seconds.) -- Hoary (talk

) 07:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My reply. Eh... yes I am aware that "I" created it. There must have been some reason I started in back in the wiki dark ages, maybe it was on a list of Bulgarian photographers or something. I don't have a 100% success rate but it probably 99% for starting notable articles... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well . . . I've probably kicked off one or two unworthy articles in my time too. But what an odd AfD that was. I wish Chaldakov the best in his career. Which makes me wonder: Have there been examples of people whose articles were deleted via AfD but who then went on to (reliably sourced) triumphs and whose new articles were welcomed? I'd rather like to think so, as I do usually feel a twinge of pity for those who are deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Black-and-white photographs category

This category seems far too generic. What are your thoughts about changing it to something like "Famous black-and-white photographs", with a definition that the photos in this category must have appeared in one of the major history of photography books? Lexaxis7 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm no particular fan of Category:Black-and-white photographs, but I hugely prefer "Category:Whatever" to "Category: Famous whatever". No matter if a given B/W photograph appears in no "major history of photography books" (itself a criterion that invites argument!), if reliable sources show that it's notable according to general WP criteria, I think it can get an article. And then it merits inclusion in Category:Black-and-white photographs just as much as a better-known photograph does.

As I skimread Category:Black-and-white photographs I see a lot of unfamiliar names. It's possible that some don't merit articles. (Today I lack the time/energy to investigate.) Do you see a problem? If so, my guess is that categorization is irrelevant to it, but I'm open to contrary argument.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands of individual B/W photographs merit articles. If that were to happen, the category should be broken up in one way or another. But I doubt that this will happen, as photographs are of interest to few editors (perhaps because they're rarely the concern of the anglophone infotainment industry).

As I looked for the category, I happened to chance on Category:Black and white photography. Now, this is a category that does call out for drastic action, but I haven't yet decided which kind. Thoughts? -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

PS I've done

this. -- Hoary (talk

) 10:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Hoary. User talk:Chicagoillinois06 requested that I restore an article about a fashion photographer which was speedy deleted per A7. I userfied it at User:Chicagoillinois06/Benjamin Kanarek to allow them opportunity to add RS with significant coverage. They e-mailed me with a whole passel of iffy refs (mostly blogs, gallery sites, forum articles, etc.). -- but there does seem to be a legitimate hint of actual significant sources for this guy. In other words, he might be notable, but I'm out of my depth with photographers. Since this is your bailiwick, would you mind taking a look? I'd appreciate your opinion. Cheers, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

My own knowledge of photography is patchy and fashion isn't one of those patches. I do know that magazines and fashion brands use a vast quantity of photographs (much of them very humdrum), and thus would not be impressed if even a reliable source simply stated that somebody had photographed for famous magazine X or famous brand Y; the question would be of what photography they had done and of what attention has been paid to it. I do see miscellaneous jpegs such as this one (which I presume are for real) that show non-humdrum photography. ¶ So yes, there's something there. But what is this something? WP articles need to be based on independent, reliable sources, not original syntheses of inferences drawn from JPEGs found on the biographee's blog. Where are the articles in photo or fashion magazines about Kanarek? Where's the book that collects his work? I don't see any of this. ¶ Of course,

many other crappy articles exist; and if (a) they ought not to exist and (b) their existence concerns the author of this draft, then he is free to take these articles to AfD. -- Hoary (talk

) 23:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that pretty much covers the same responses I gave him on his talk page. I'll see if they come up with any decent sources. Thanks for taking a look. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Hoary. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aksel Stasny.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GA bot

I was wondering whether you have any experience of

No, no. Rightly or wrongly, the article is a GA. That being so, the bot was right to label it a GA.

Should it be a GA? I'm not qualified to make a quick judgement, though I will say that it's surprisingly short for a GA. If you don't think it should be a GA, then I think you should first say so at User talk:Arsenikk; you may also wish to write a list of questions, requests or comments in the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response and for your explanations. I don't think I'll take it any further. The thing that surprised me most was the poor quality of the English. I would have thought a native-English speaker like Arsenikk would have tidied the thing up himself. But I see Dr Blofeld recommended his involvement - so that my partly explain the rapid assessment. I would also have thought it would have been useful to have a map showing the places mentioned and perhaps a few more pictures. It's the first time I've see a DYK which had already been rated GA. But then there's a first time for everything. - Ipigott (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Look! I made a photographer article!

Well done Sir! -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Shinto

Please consider the analysis and opinions I have posted here --

Thesis

I was a bit hasty in reverting your removal of the Master's Thesis material in Lolita. At first I read the clause "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable". However, later I read "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes....Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." So I guess you are correct in removing that material. However, Master's theses have been occasionally known to get published by scholarly venues. Mine was. --WickerGuy (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on the publication of your master's thesis. Its publication by a university press or similar (as opposed to its acceptance for a degree, or its publication by "VDM" or the like) makes it citable. -- Hoary (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nabokov Redux

Particularly good works on Nabokov's comments (and providing me with still more opportunity to fix stuff I did NOT post- I pretty much did the cultural refs section). Reviewing

The trolls and their feeding

Hey there. While I understand that vandals and trolls are annoying, please note that, when dealing with one, the best action to take is ignoring them. See

Oh, I agree with you. But I'm a little puzzled by your message. Are you suggesting that I have recently fed a troll? If so, a diff, please. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I could have sworn I included a diff. Here you go. It's not that bad, but it's not optimal either. Cheers, m.o.p 07:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Though I don't claim to know what the optimum is, it doesn't look at all bad to me. I avoided feeding him any such trollfodder as little red graphics with crosses or raised hands. He responded by urinating on this talk page, which is nothing out of the ordinary. I noticed that and hosed it off. Then nothing happened for quite some time (I kept an eye on his list of "contributions") and I went to bed. ¶ Eight full hours after the last of his very few if silly edits, he was blocked for 31 hours (which would strike me as an overreaction even if imposed while the perp was in mid-urination). And, while he was blocked, he was warned not to do the same kind of thing again, otherwise he'd be, uh, blocked. This strikes me as bizarre, but it was probably a mere edit conflict; still, the person who left the message could after posting it have noticed the block notice and self-reverted. ¶ Should I go back to admin school, d'you think? -- Hoary (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no, I think you're doing great. And yeah, it's not horrible, but experience has shown me that it's easiest just not to talk to vandals, despite how childish they are at times. Don't take it personally, though! I think you're doing a fantastic job. m.o.p 15:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Angus McBean

Thanks for tidying up the reference I added to McBean's page pointing to his photo of Anne Sharp. I see you remarked that it still needs to be sourced. I don't know what to do about that. The file is a scan I took from the original McBean print, which has been in my mother's possession since the picture was taken in 1951. I wanted it to illustrate her wiki biography, as there is no free image of her at that point in her career (and it is a fabulously good photo). I only found McBean's name on the back when I took it out of the frame to scan it, and even then I had no idea he himself was so famous. So I don't know how to "source" it, unless a scan of the back of the photo with the attribution would be any use. Morag Kerr (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I expressed myself badly. What I meant was that the section as a whole required (and still requires) "sourcing". This doesn't mean that every clause within it requires sourcing; and indeed your addition, with which I tinkered slightly, is one part that needs none. It's fine as is. ¶ As you probably will have noticed, I reduced the dimensions of the photograph and deleted the original. This was not because I thought that it didn't merit a larger size: I was merely trying to protect it against unnecessary deletion. ¶ McBean was a remarkable photographer and books of his works are worth a look. The article here about him looks well-intentioned but I'm sure that the stuff in it about Bailey (for example) is wrong: McBean's "occlusion" (not my term) was not by Bailey but was instead by an entire wave of photography of which Bailey was merely the most celebrated British example. However, I lack the time to "source" this so I'm in no hurry to add it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand what you mean. Thanks for reducing the size of the photo, if that was required. It looks fine as it is now. The quality of the original print is very high - a scan at whatever-the-hell resolution you like still retains amazing vividness and sharpness. I have always admired the photo enormously, although my mother complained she didn't like the way the dress showed a bit of cleavage (she was playing the part of a 14-year-old at the time, although she was actually 35) and her hair needed washing that day! When I pointed out to her last night that the photo had been taken by a famous photographer she was already aware of that, though she was getting the name mixed up with John Piper who was a set designer she'd worked with.

I agree with you about the "Occlusion" part of the article - it doesn't look very scholarly. However, none of my business since I'd never even heard of McBean until less than 48 hours ago! Morag Kerr (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoary, I replied to you on my talkpage but I don't think you saw it. Re the deletion of the Anne Sharp photo. A friend on another forum says its because I made a mistake when originally uploading the photo, something to do with the wrong category. He said there was a way to do it right, but it was all a bit cryptic to me and he vanished without explaining further. What he said was "Images of that type need to be uploaded with something like the

This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as non-free use under the Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). Fair use //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hoary/Archive26 true

To the uploader: Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. For example non-free use rationales, see Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Template:Non-free use rationale 2 may be helpful for stating the rationale. To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template. If this tag does not accurately describe this image, please replace it with an appropriate one.

tag with the argument that is shows a person at a particular point in their career." Do you know what he meant and how to fix it? Morag Kerr (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Morag and Hoary, I found my way here from T:TDYK. Morag, I believe you should

upload

the image using the "It is a historically significant fair use image" option. On the following page, you need to select "Historically significant fair use (deceased persons or historic events)" in the "Licensing" drop-down menu, as well as fill out the File description box. I *think* that should do it.

By the way, I've suggested on the DYK nominations page that your article would be a nice addition to the main page on International Women's Day (8 March). Would you be happy with that? In that case I would move it to the 8 March holding area. We are trying to get lots of articles celebrating women on the main page that day, and we need about two dozen DYKs. Best, --JN466 22:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, JN. Do you think that will do it? The subject ain't deceased! I'm getting slightly different advice from "Geni" on the JREF forum, who is an experienced wiki editor - I think there may be more than one way of skinning this particular cat.

I have found a number of photos online of the 1949 production, but as they're group pics the resolution of a detail would be very low, and they're copyrighted up to their eyeballs with "Getty Images" across the frames, so I ain't touching that lot!

I'm sure it would be very nice as a feature on International Women's Day if it's the sort of article that's wanted for that purpose. I have added another couple of references this evening. Morag Kerr (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Good! I see that Geni has restored the image; I would go with her advice rather than mine. :) I am glad to hear that Mrs Sharp is alive and well. Best, --JN466 23:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, let's hope this satisfies the nit-pickers. (BTW, it's Miss Sharp, she's Mrs. Kerr.) (And Geni's a guy....) Thanks a lot. Morag Kerr (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like I'm not doing too well tonight. ;) But at any rate, the image is there, which is the only thing that matters. And it certainly is historic. Nice article. Cheers, --JN466 00:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh . . . hello all. Sorry, no, I didn't notice the earlier message. Thank you for alerting me here. I'm glad that the image is back. I hope that there'll be no further kerfuffle over it; but if there is, and if I seem not to notice it, please don't hesitate to notify me here. -- Hoary (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, much appreciated. I have uploaded a slightly lighter scan of the photo, because I thought it was showing up a bit dark. Could you take a look and please revert if you think this was a bad idea? Morag Kerr (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving Art of Denmark

Hi again Hoary. I wonder whether you could help me out by moving

Done! -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Quick work, thanks. I've just started an article on Sanja Iveković. I picked her up from your Camera Austria Award list and thought she deserved a word in the EN WP too. Feel free to add, edit or whatever. - Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well done. I can't see anything in the article that cries out for a tweak. I clicked on links about Sanja Iveković, but I'm sorry to say that nothing I saw inspired me to spend time googling for more stuff about her. (De gustibus....) ¶ In my spare moments I'm doing more of the tiresome preparations for improving an article on the truly remarkable David Goldblatt, triggered by my serendipitous discovery and purchase of a fat little retrospective of his work, and the subsequent discovery of at least four other books of his work in "my" library. There's a lot about him on the web, too. -- Hoary (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Steve Giovinco

Hi. I'm trying to understand this. The article was deleted under prod, so if you think it should be kept there's no problem with you restoring it, but your rational confuses me. You said "Of course there's evidence of notability. (It may be insufficient, and this may be AfD fodder". Now, here's my problem: do you think the article should be kept or not? If you do, fine - anyone who disagrees can go to afd. If you don't (and questioning the sufficiency of the evidence makes me wonder) then I'd wonder why restore it. Prod isn't CSD A7 - ultimately the article isn't deleted because of lack of notability, it is deleted because no one objects to deletion. As I say, if you meant that you think the article is worthy of retention, then I've no problem with that.--Scott Mac 14:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. ¶ I didn't notice that the article got a prod flag; I did notice when it was deleted. When that happened, I thought "Steve Giovinco? I've no idea who that is, but I must have put the article on my watchlist for some reason." I looked at the deleted article and saw what seemed to be signs (if not sourced signs) of notability. I therefore copied it to an edit window, and set out to source the claims for exhibitions. The evidence for most of these was googlable, even though it was dismayingly sparse. I deleted the items that weren't sourced and, with no great enthusiasm (thus my edit summary), resuscitated the article and replaced it with my version. ¶ That done, I took a break but returned later to look at the claims of exhibitions with Famous People and of presence in permanent collections. This was less fruitful than the earlier search, so my enthusiasm for the article sank yet further. ¶ However, this points to four more shows, and he may well have had more besides -- I haven't yet bothered to look. I've neither looked at nor commented on the short list of "Selected articles" (only one of which is described with tolerable precision), but just about everything else in the article is either sourced or marked "citation needed", so I think that at worst the article is harmless. (I hope you agree that the changes I made to it have made it less awful.) But I wouldn't be offended if somebody were to send it off to AfD. -- Hoary (talk)

I'm still confused why you undeleted it if you are so unenthusiastic about it - and if the best thing you can say about it is "harmless". Stuff that's deleted under prod is deleted because no-one thinks it worth saving, and undeletion (or deproding) is an indication that someone positively believes the article ought to be kept. If you don't think it positively ought to be kept, then it is a bit of a waste of everyone's time undeleting it and forcing a needless AfD. However, if you want it kept that's fine. I don't feel strongly enough about it to push the point to AFD.--Scott Mac 16:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm unenthusiastic about a large percentage of what's widely welcomed within WP, and the best I can say about this stuff is that it's harmless. No, what's deleted via prod is deleted because (i) the person who sticks the prod notice thinks it should be deleted, (ii) nobody who happens to notice the prod notice disagrees with deletion, and (iii) the reason for deletion looks vaguely plausible to the closing admin (who's typically working in a hurry). By undeleting this, I haven't forced an AfD, I've merely forestalled any further prod (if I remember the rulebook correctly). ¶ I note that you haven't said here why you think the article should be deleted. (Not that I'm complaining. Of course you are under no obligation to explain.) It doesn't seem likely that he passes even the preamble to

WP:CREATIVE (A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject) let alone any of the "CREATIVE" conditions, unless (i) some of the obscure references to "articles" at the foot of the article turn out to be fruitful, and (ii) we charitably interpret the weaselly word "significant". Well, we'll see. If you think it should be deleted but can't be bothered to launch the AfD (a situation that's familiar to me), then perhaps somebody else will launch it. -- Hoary (talk

) 23:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you think the article fails the relevant guideline, but you undeleted it anyway - meaning it stays unless someone can be bothered to AFD it? WHY? Why are you putting material back on Wikipidia which you think probably doesn't belong?--Scott Mac 09:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether it passes or fails, because I haven't seen the secondary sources that have been adduced, and because I don't know what "significant" means. Perhaps it belongs, perhaps it doesn't. The ever-vigorous Offtoriorob clearly thinks that it does not belong; perhaps you would like to comment in the AfD that he started. -- Hoary (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for wasting everyone's time, by recreating content which you've no idea whether belongs on Wikipedia or not. Sheeesh.--Scott Mac 13:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not have no idea; I have mixed ideas. (Should I perhaps have aped mediocre politicians by feigning certainty?) So far the only people to have had time wasted by me would appear to be Offtoriorob and you; and calling two people "everyone" is a stretch. Furthermore, most of the time you have spent on the matter you've spent on this talk page, of your own volition. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

diff - Ah, excuse me, I missed that citation in the middle of the two citation required tags diff, I hope you will assume good faith and not assert I did it deliberately with intention to deceive.

Spoken like a gentleman, Sir! No hard feelings. -- Hoary (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, appreciated. Lets see the feedback as to the afd comments, I see some notability but when I nominated it I didn't see anything standing out. If the outcome is a clear assertion of note and some article improvement then I will be happy. Regards.

Off2riorob (talk

) 14:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Japan for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost article on WP Japan is scheduled to run this Monday. In light of the recent earthquake, is there anything else you'd like to request from our readers? If so, feel free to add the new information to the "anything else" section of the interview. -Mabeenot (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent message to 178.94.98.221

Having a look at this. I really don't mean to correct you but this isn't just random text, this IP has placed blatant copyright violations onto several articles. Also, I had a look at their recent contributions, and this editor did stop over 5 minutes ago after you posted the message, so it is quite likely that this IP won't see that message. Minimac (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue with any of that. The two examples that I saw were obviously irrelevant (unless somebody happens to think that "philosophical" mumbo-jumbo is relevant to actual philosophy), and that was enough for me. It doesn't much surprise me that they're copyright to boot. -- Hoary (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Hello again Hoary. It's not photography this time but perhaps you could have a quick look at Jim Clemes and my reactions on the talk page. Would appreciate your opinion. Perhaps I've done something wrong after all. - Ipigott (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing article title

Hi Hoary, you've been so helpful I wonder if I can ask your advice again? I've just started to have a go at the article The Little Sweep, and I think I have enough well-referenced material to make it quite good. The trouble is, it is wrongly titled. The original article only dealt with the opera that forms the second half of the work, and it was titled accordingly. However, any comprehensive article has to deal with the entire work, and the entire work is not called The Little Sweep, it is called Let's Make an Opera!. And indeed, I have a small shed-load of info about the first half waiting to go in.

There is a redirect page redirecting from Let's Make an Opera! to The Little Sweep, but really, it ought to be the other way round. I'd like to make it so, but I don't want to come off half-cocked, mess it up, and then get flak. I can see quite a long list of articles linking to the page, which I could go through one by one and fix, and I guess talk page links don't really matter, but could you tell me what the proper procedure is for a job of this nature? Morag Kerr (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I too hadn't heard of The Little Sweep but had heard of Let's Make an Opera! which included an opera which, oh I understand now, is titled The Little Sweep. I agree with your suggestion that it should be renamed. But I'm not going to rename it, and I advise you not to do so either. You've put up a message on its talk page asking about a renaming; good, now wait a week and see what reaction it gets. If there's no significant objection, then it can be moved. -- Hoary (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That's good advice. There's no hurry at all, as the thing has had its present title for some time now, and there's an appropriate redirect in place. (I seem to recall first accessing the page through the redirect.) It will also take me a little while to get the material I have on the work put together. I don't see any other activity on the page at all, and it's hardly a hot topic, so I don't imagine the proposal is likely to attract violent opposition. I just need to know what to do, as an when the time is appropriate. Morag Kerr (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Some say source requirements for ethnicity and gender of

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at

We're on the 6th day. Traditionally, these polls go for 7; unless there's no obvious consensus, when we go for an additional 7 days.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Signpost article

The WikiProject Japan Signpost article scheduled for this week was postponed in light of the earthquake, tsunami, and ongoing nuclear crisis. We would like to publish the interview within the next couple weeks with updated information that takes into account the events in Japan. Please take an opportunity to return to the interview page to answer some additional questions located at the bottom of the page. This is also an opportunity to revise any previous answers if you feel the need. We hope to bring your story to a wider audience. Thanks again for your participation. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Camerapedia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Camerapedia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camerapedia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

One of your edits just popped up on my watchlist. I'm glad to see you are OK. You're only making few contributions of late, I guess that lead suit you have to wear all day must get in the way! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we're all keeling over with leukemia here: the level of radiation in Tokyo is so high that it's, uh, below the Japanese national average, let alone the US (or Cornish) average. Fish are rather more worrisome. (Note the sloppy writing in that: is the level 7.5M times the max allowable, or merely 7.5M times the norm?) There are precedents for mislabeling, and I imagine that plenty of fish caught near Fukushima will be sold as having been caught near Chile or wherever; and anyway I suppose that glowing fish will be turned into chickenfeed and so forth. So one way or another we'll get our cesium, unless we become vegetarians. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Reworking ELNO on Official Links

Hi,

As an editor who was involved with ELNO discussion some time ago, "'Official Myspace' Links on Wiki" I am inviting you to comment on the proposal to rework the definition of "Official Link".[1]

Regards, ELNO Checking (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Great Famine (Ireland)

Hello again Hoary! Thought I would bring to your attention something outside photography, art and architecture. I have just turned up this article about the 19th century Great Famine in Ireland and have found there are draconian editing restrictions related to The Troubles. I can see this has had a pretty restrictive effect on further editing of the article which in my mind can hardly be in the best interests of Wikipedia. Indeed, any relationship between the potato blight in the middle of the 19th century and the comparatively recent incidents in Northern Ireland must be in the eyes of the beholder, but not mine. I have posted a query on the article's talk page but wonder whether a seasoned Wikipedian like you could not sort things out sooner rather than later? When reading the article, I thought it looked like a good candidate for GA or even FA but then saw there were severe restrictions. - Ipigott (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry not to have got back earlier on this. I think that what you and I share is a dispassionate view of Ireland past and present. My dispassionate view of Ireland in no way prevents me from describing the damage done by distant or recent actors in its history, from seeing cause–effect relationships, or from appreciating that others have, or are even ruled by, their passions. I imagine that the article has been used to promote one interpretation of history over another, or worse. I don't suppose you'd want to get involved in that kind of thing, and certainly I wouldn't. Indeed, I for one find "1RR" and so forth attractive by comparison. ¶ The most obvious annoyance is the strong suggestion that an "RFC" is required for any change. But then RFCs on editor content are disproportionately verbose, acrimonious and conspicuous: content RFCs are rarely so arduous, and all in all this requirement may sound worse than it really is. ¶ I therefore suggest that you start by playing by the rules rather than (however aboveboardedly and legitimately) attempting to change the rules. With luck, you'll attract encyclopedists rather than axe-grinders to the talk page; the discussion will then be (rather than just promise to be) mature and constructive, and with this established you'll then be more persuasive when you ask for the more onerous of the restrictions to be removed. -- Hoary (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. I certainly wasn't trying to change any rules. To tell you the truth, I'm not really sure what the rules are! Up to now, I've had no responses on the talk page but perhaps that's because my suggestion was too direct. I'm not too sure what you want me to do when you say I should play by the rules. Anyway, this area is actually of only marginal interest to me. I just think it is a great pity this article seems to have become stuck in the mud. And it does seem to me to be a pretty good article, free of any biased content. - Ipigott (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

First off I must say that when I read my own comment it seems curiously pompous. I put that down to temporary caffeine shortage. ¶ Well, I see this: The article Great Famine (Ireland), along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies [...]. All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. And "outside opinions" is linked to "

WP:RFC". I thought you meant "That requirement is silly, how might one get it lifted?" My response is, "Better to go along with it and thereby show that it's silly, whereupon it will be easier to have lifted." But I don't know. -- Hoary (talk

) 13:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I liked you comment in the 'Candid Camera' debate. I've often thought that the article selection criteria that Wikipedia has evolved are seriously screwed up when, for example, any episode of any TV programme seems to be automatically acceptable and yet people have to jump through all sorts of hoops to include articles relating to other art forms. PRL42 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a product of its editors, among whom middle-class north American male teens are amply represented. Perhaps we should be surprised and grateful that the result isn't even more grotesque. (Consider: at the very highest level of Wikipedia there's a belief in "Objectivism".) Meanwhile, we'd better learn to laugh along with the Wikipedia we've got. How about this gem about pr0n "notability": starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature? Pity they didn't work legendary into that, but even without legendary, what truly ("iconically"?) windbreaking prose! -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ebonics

Hey there, I can't help but notice the rash of new editors working on the Ebonics article. I'm not familiar enough with the subject (it's on my watchlist but just for vandalism purposes) but since you seem to have a handle on things I'm not too worried. It just seems odd that all of sudden we have all these people interested in this article and not much else. SQGibbon (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed odd, but it's not obvious that any of them is doing anything wrong, so I suppose that it's OK. (I mean, I disagree with some of the edits, but they seem constructive, or at least intended constructively.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Not good at writing articles

I'm not good at articles. Can you work on the articles I've started? Neptunekh2 (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If their subject interests me, perhaps. ¶ I took a quick look at the list of your most recent contributions and none of the titles really stood out, other than Robert Frank. In this pair of edits you changed

an important figure in [[United States|American]] [[Documentary photography|photography]] and [[Documentary film|film]]

to

an important figure in [[Swiss]]-[[American]] [[Documentary photography|photography]] and [[Documentary film|film]]

However, (i) though he's Swiss, he's not important in Swiss-American documentary photography or film (whatever either of these may be); he's important in American photography, maybe in American film, and maybe in Swiss photography or film or both; (ii) Swiss is a redirect and American is a disambiguation page. So I'm about to revert this pair of edits. -- Hoary (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Plans and interiors of Mentmore

It'd be great if you could bring it up to some reasonable level. I'd asked Giano about it and he thought it'd be better to start from scratch.   Will Beback  talk  02:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that you'd asked Giano.

Maybe "my" library has a copy of the relevant volume of Pevsner; I'll try to remember to check. -- Hoary (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

History of Photography Ambassador for

WikiProject MoMA

Hi Hoary. I don't know if you noticed my comment at

Thank you for the invitation. I've read about it and it sounds valuable. I imagine that the two hours per week could easily become longer, which alarms me a bit. Moreover, while I appreciate the importance of helping and not biting newbies, I'm not at all sure that these are among my few strengths. Still ... maybe. There's talk of it lasting a semester (or perhaps a term, I forget); from roughly (or even precisely) when to when would this run? -- Hoary (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the main goal of the History of Photography ambassador would just be to serve as an effective interface between WikiProject History of Photography and WikiProject MoMA on article creation and improvement. This is inspired by the university

Wikipedia:Ambassadors program, but is more corely a part of the push for WikiProject GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives & Museums). As to term, there is no official time period yet, but let's just say you can stay on for a summer fling and see if you like it :)--Pharos (talk

) 18:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK then! (Irrelevantly: If you're in NYC you've probably already seen the video at the top of this ... but it doesn't harm to watch it a second time.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I think you might be interested in

Wikipedia talk:GLAM/MoMA#Mega-lists, and especially its applicability to the MoMA Department of Photography.--Pharos (talk

) 15:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Plans and interiors of Mentmore

A tag has been placed on

criteria for speedy deletion

, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a

mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk

Good call, bot! I deleted it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Japan

The japanese surrendered a few months after germany. Why didn't the Japanese surrender at the same time as Germany in wwII?

If you read and digest a general history of the second world war, you will understand. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We're recruiting art lovers!

Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you!
	Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian SarahStierch (talk ) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. I wish you well, but I fear that I'll have little free time in the next few months and, perhaps rashly, I have already said yes to an invitation to spend time with people based at or writing about MoMA (see above on this talk page). So I'm reluctant to call myself a participant. But if I notice that somebody in your team is doing something in an area about which I'm not so ignorant, and in which I am interested, I may pitch in. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Daisaku Ikeda

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations, there is nowhere states that the official websites are not the reliable sources of reference for his honors and accomplishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.197.80 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see this, and continue the discussion at Talk:Daisaku Ikeda. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Payments for Edits

There is now evidence that has been gathered of payments made to you for your Wikipedia editing services. This evidence will shortly be released in a public forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics (talk • contribs) 02:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for tipping me off to this, Lori! I'm not usually a fan of fantasy fiction, but I'm honored to learn that some is being created starring little old me. -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have warned the editor and will monitor their future behavior. --John (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no "threat", other of course than the announcement that persons anonymous will posting something found (or can I guess faked) by persons anonymous to some mysteriously unnamed "public forum", an announcement that has me quaking in my boots (not). And yes, I suppose that she should say who she is. ¶ If you think it would be wise to call in an admin, please do so. -- Hoary (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that this edit is a threat of off-wiki harassment, and also given the history of SOCKing just feel that better safe than sorry; I will post a question on an administrator page in a mo.

Mtking (talk

) 08:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)