User talk:MagazineHound

Welcome!

Hello, MagazineHound, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Thirdly, in an edit such as this one (in which you obscurely talk about a "section") you ask that an AfD notice should not be removed, but there is no AfD notice.

Fourthly, in this edit (another in which there's some AfD confusion) you say This photographer is not published in any notable Fashion Magazines. (i.e Vogue, W, Bazaar, or even secondaries like Glamour, Elle, Allure... Not Published by any CondeNast Magazine or Hearst.) It's not at all clear how this squares with the criteria for notable fashion photographer that you use in what appears to be your sole contribution to a talk page, this edit, in which you write I did find Luke Duval as a Avantguardian winner in Surface Magazine 10 Annual Contest, he should stay in the section. (Actually it was already clear in the article that Duval won this.)

Perhaps the most frequently appearing ingredient within your edit summaries is not published in any notable fashion magazines. This is very surprising, in that I've no reason to think there's any comprehensive index of contributions to notable fashion magazines (whether or not these include Surface). Do you mean no verifiable claim of publication in any notable fashion magazine, or is there some index that I have overlooked? -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to work for CondeNast. Yes, the index of all previous and current contributors is on CondeNast's web access directory dating from 1906. The list includes art directors, writers, illustrators, photographer and fashion stylists. It happens to also include the contributor lists of our major competitors like Hearst and Hachette Filipacchi since 1990. I could perhaps help you edit these "categories". This is my first take on Wikipedia - please bear with me while I become acclimated to its rules and editing practices. I've noted your commentary of my use of the exclamation point and indecorous use of terminology in reference to the "catagoies", which I was calling it sections and lists. MagazineHound (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand.

I have to hand it to you, Hound, although you've mixed up your warning templates in places you do seem to have a good nose for promotional crap. I've just looked in horrified/amused disbelief at Paul Couvrette. He does seem to be noteworthy, but the article on him is so bad it's hilarious. (See my comment in Talk:Paul Couvrette.)

I'm not sure that you understand "categories" (which anyway aren't very easy to understand, even when applied properly). I suggest taking a little break from articles on photographers, where spam is unfortunately endemic, and looking at something fairly immune to spam, such as an article on the place where you happen to live. If it happens to be NYC, then somewhere on that page you'll read "Categories: Featured articles | Cities in New York | Former capitals of the United States | Former United States state capitals | Former national capitals | Metropolitan areas of the United States | New York City | Port settlements in the United States | Settlements established in 1625 | People of the Year Awards winners". Click away at some of these and look around. When you've started to work it out, return to a halfway decent article on a photographer such as Uchida Kuichi (long dead and thus safely unspammable) and look around there. Then return to the fragrant world of contemporary fashion/sleb portraiture. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, I look through your comment to Talk:Paul Couvrette, It could'nt have been verbalized better. I'll do my wiki homework and look forward to talking again. In the interim, if you need my to lookup anyone for you in the CondeNast database, please dont hesitate to ask. Would be glad to help. MagazineHound (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind offer. Hey, come on over to "

HOP" if you have a few spare minutes. -- Hoary (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that article Paul Couvrette is a candidate for AfD. Should I proceed? MagazineHound (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem fond of this template. In this edit, you attached it (together with a warning not to remove a nonexistent AfD message) to the article on Kris Krug. But there's no obvious sign that Krug edited the article, and you don't present any evidence. I've therefore removed the CoI flag. Please do not attach it to an article without presenting your reasoning for it on the article's talk page.

I'll agree that the Kris Krug article is poor and that its subject seems to be of minor importance, but these are separate issues. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake in reference to the col flag. It's quite interesting that all of these Canadian photographers are listed in this "category".

Kris Krug is not significant and should be deleted posthaste. MagazineHound (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My hunch is that you're right and that Krug's article should be deleted. However, it carries no immediate risk. (It's not as if it contains libelous statements.) Articles can be deleted posthaste but this doesn't qualify; please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy (yawn) and some of the pages to which it links (yawn yawn). In brief, there are three ways to propose deletion ("speedy", "prod", "AfD") but I suggest that you don't try any for at least a few days, until you've got used to the way these things work -- unless you see a clear copyright violation or libelous statement. Again, if it looks as if it should be deleted, make a mental note of it, move on, and later return. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of reasoning for a CoI notice. Unusually, it brought polite disagreement. Maybe the CoI notice was mistaken, I don't know. -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you slapped on the "Notability" warning above, and a warning not to remove a nonexistent AfD message. Your summary for the edit was He is not a fashion photographer. Well referenced portrait photographer.

If he's a well referenced portrait photographer, it's surprising that he's not notable. Indeed, the second sentence of this (rather horrible) article reads He has been recognized as the Canadian Photographer of the Year, Ontario Photographer of the Year and Ottawa Photographer of the Year. This is a clear (if unreferenced) declaration of notability.

The impression I'm getting is that you have a pretty good nose for dodgy articles, but when you've found one are content to stick any old warning message on it. Please think carefully before adding a warning message. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the input, this photographer jumped out at me because he did not come up in my database at CondeNast. Vogue does not have an office in Canada, and he has never been hired by American Vogue.

Also, Canadian Photographer of the Year, Ontario Photographer of the Year and Ottawa Photographer of the Year. From what group, what magazine, by whom etc. etc. MagazineHound (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, it's very fishy. Maybe he was awarded them by the kind of company you pay $50 to get you into a "Who's Who" that no library bothers with, maybe by some AM radio station, maybe by his aunt. Or possibly even by some mass-market photo magazine.

NB You can't appeal to a database that's not also available to others. Of course, anyone writing in Wikipedia can claim to be anyone. You claim to be working at Condé Nast and for now I'll take your word for both this and your access to a comprehensive and reliable database. But as you must realize, anybody could make the same claims. So you can use the database to confirm or assuage your own doubts, but not as evidence. (Unless I've misunderstood and it's a public access database.)

Probably with the best of intentions and largely out of inexperience, you've applied templates too freely. If for example somebody appears to be a portrait photographer of some note but only trivially a fashion photographer, then the best thing to do is not to slap on a "notability" template but instead to remove any "fashion photographer" category. If an article reeks of (self-) promotion, it's highly likely that there's been a considerable conflict of interest but it's conceivable that the article was instead innocently if stupidly written by some starry-eyed fan; only add the COI template if the evidence is clear, and if the evidence is less than stunningly obvious when one glances at the article history, explain on the article's talk page (aka discussion page).

Can I ask you to please go through your edits ("contributions") so far, checking that the templates are appropriate? If they aren't, please remove them. There are plenty of other templates; see the list

I will do that now. MagazineHound (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. Err on the side of caution with warning templates: you can always make a mental note of an article that's fishy and return to it when you've figured out just what it is that's wrong with it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, I could get you access to the database.

I will ask one of my superiors tomorrow how I go about doing that, and get you a password and login. Would this help? MagazineHound (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the amicable offer. But it probably wouldn't help, as nobody would have a compelling reason to believe my claim that I had access to it. However, I do appreciate the gesture. -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recently threw a few tags onto the

Dan Schliker is not a notable fashion photographer, I am nominating this article for deletion, due to lack of noability. (He is unpublished in major fashion magazines, if you can source Vogue, W or any other high-end fashion magazine I would gladly reconsider) 74.73.149.54 (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Dan Schliker is not a notable fashion photographer. I have nominated the article for deletion. MagazineHound (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just use an IP to make a comment (above), log back in, and make another comment? Because that is considered a form of

sock-puppetry. Read WP:Notability (people). You don't have to be published in Vogue to make it to Wikipedia. Vogue isn't the "telling sign" for somebody to be notable. Killiondude (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Tthis distinct photographer has no significgant subsidy to the fashion world. Ukrainian top fashion photographer at best should have photographs of the top ukriaian models like Snejana Onopka. I think in due time his disrepute may change. I am not saying that you have to be in "Vogue Magazine," to be considered a predominate fashion photographer. What I am saying is that one has to influence and be a part of major fashion publications and fashion clients to be considered notible. His notoriety is not refereced. MagazineHound (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are incorrect. Read

consensus that the site has come to in regards to notability. Killiondude (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I strongly challenge and dissagree. This is an article from his personal webpage, moreover; what publication? (Do you have publishing rights?) I've sent the image to a colleague from the Ukraine, she says its a simple biographical interview. The photographer is not listed in the CondeNast or Hearst database which emcimbusses 120 fashion magazines. An interview or better yet an editorial in a leading or slightly notable fashion magazine would help. Please note the photographers in this section are major influencer of the indusrty, ie. Irving Penn, Richard Avedon,Steven Klein, Steven Meisel Dan Schilker's images are not relevant to the fashion industry. Perhaps, the article can be of relevance at a future time. MagazineHound (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. He doesn't have to meet any other standards than

Pop Photo. I contacted Pop Photo to try and substantiate this claim. All that to say, notability just relies on how far he has been published in third-party sources. Killiondude (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

He should not be in the fashion photography catagory, there are tens of thousands of photographers that would qualify for this category if the only standard of notability was one or two insignificant third party sources.Photo Pop is not a "fashion magazine." I believe the article should and will be deleted. You should consider taking the article to a different category. MagazineHound (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be something in what you say, Hound; but there's rather more in what Killiondude says.

First, let's be careful with words. Two examples. (A) You say I think in due time his disrepute may change. Now, I do understand that notoriety has recently come to (re?) acquire the meaning of "fame", but I haven't yet heard disrepute used to mean mere "lack of repute", and I also haven heard of any disrepute as I'd understand the term. Putting aside for a moment the question of exactly what "notable" means, I hope all three of us (MH, KD and myself) would agree that the question is of whether Schliker is sufficiently notable as a photographer, not of whether he's sufficiently notable as a creep. Nobody's mentioned any reason to suspect creepiness or disrepute. Let's assume good character until we have reason to suspect the contrary. (B) You say Dan Schilker's images are not relevant to the fashion industry. It's immediately obvious that they are relevant to it, unless you suppose that the images attributed to him are not by him or that there's been some other bizarre fabrication. It's clear that you believe they're of trivial or even no importance to the fashion industry, but they're relevant all the same. (I'm not sure if "disrepute" and "not relevant" are a matter of carelessness or exaggeration, and of course you're free to say most things on your own talk page, but it pays to get in good verbal practice if you're planning on launching more AfDs.)

Secondly, you say The photographer is not listed in the CondeNast or Hearst database which [encompasses] 120 fashion magazines. Again, you're welcome to use this resource (these resources?) to prompt, confirm, or assuage your own doubts, but you can't cite it in an argument because it's not available to the public. Still, let's consider it for a minute. It's likely that a great proportion of Schliker's contributions to fashion mags have been to Russian- or Ukrainian-language publications. I'd assume that his name would then be written in Cyrillic script; famously, there are different ways to transliterate Cyrillic (and it's even conceivable that he's got a different name for Russian- and Ukrainian-language contexts). Also, while 120 publications is an impressive sum, I wonder how well represented among them are magazines in Russian or Ukrainian.

Thirdly, you say Please note the photographers in this section are major influencer of the indusrty, ie. Irving Penn, Richard Avedon,Steven Klein, Steven Meisel (my emphasis). Again you're talking about "sections". What are these "sections"? (If you mean categories, see the next point.)

Fourthly, while you are right to say there are tens of thousands of photographers that would qualify for [the "Fashion photographers" category] if the only standard of notability was one or two insignificant third party sources, if you have good reason to think of a photographer that He should not be in the fashion photography catagory then what you should consider doing long before launching an AfD is to remove "[[Category: Fashion photographers]]" from his or her article. Of course you should have good reason for this, and if you think there could be any reasonable doubt about the matter you should explain the removal on the article's talk/discussion page. I routinely remove categories from articles myself. (But there's no rush even here; see for example

this dialogue

.)

Fifthly, Killiondude is entirely right in saying He doesn't have to meet any other standards than WP:Notability (people). He doesn't have to be included in "CondeNast" or "Hearst databases" to have an article on Wikipedia. He doesn't have to have pictures that are "relevant to the fashion industry" per se. He just needs to meet the Wikipedia notability requirements in general.

Now, all of this does not go toward my voting (or "!voting") "Keep". Indeed, I don't yet have any reason to think that Schliker is (yet) significant that's sufficient to let me vote "keep". However, I still have unanswered questions about him and therefore am in no rush to vote "delete". If you think the article should be deleted, fine, but make sure that your reasons are Wikipedia's reasons. (If I could appeal to my own reasons for deletion and had sufficient stamina, I'd nominate hundreds of articles about photographers for deletion. And thousands of articles about models, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DEN SCHLIKER is a Ukrainian photographer, that is why the references r mostly in Ukrainian or Russian. His work r published in several Russian/Ukrainian magz and books. Those magz/books have strong positions in those countries. The references are in Ukrainian and Russina mostly. If he is published in fashion magz that are not familiar to you it does not meanhe's not notable. As to the Vogue mag - oh, belive me, it's not the God...there r many other fashionmagz of that kind and if he's not in Vogue - it is not a criterion for deletion.. GeoffBarrenger (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add references in Russian and/or Ukrainian. -- Hoary (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

MagazineHound (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ways of fulfilling notability requirements. That is from

WP:CREATIVE. I'm trying to prove this case from the criteria listed further up that same page, at WP:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Killiondude (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This article is posted in the creative area. Notability of your article is proved in the basic sense; however, not for the fashion photographer catagory. MagazineHound (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't trust what I just said ("There are many ways of fulfilling notability requirements."), please ask any other editor. Just because the subject is a photographer, doesn't mean he needs to fulfill the criteria at

WP:CREATIVE. Killiondude (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

When you're fully aware of all that's involved, you're welcome to step up your production of AfDs. Although production of good, sourced, descriptive text on worthwhile photographers (and other subjects) would probably be even more welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do see what you are saying. I plan to spend multitudinous hours getting this category to a tolerable state. I see you already have made great contributions. I have started to comprise a coming soon list in my head of predominate fashion photographers. I am planning to introduce these articles in time. Thank you for your guidance and well recieved counsel. Also, Ive looked into the access to Condenast's archive of contributors and found anyone can have access to it. You unambiguously have to apply via Conde's webpage, email admin describing your role as an editor on Wiki; they will grant you full access. Should you have trouble contact me MagazineHound (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MagazineHound, the sheer volume of my contributions to this page will show that I have put quite a bit of my time and effort into advising you. But this recent comment of yours makes me think that this time and effort was wasted.

While I'm by no means as keen on the ideal of "civility" as are some editors, you are unnecessarily and unpleasantly discussing work of Barrenger's that appears to be entirely irrelevant to Wikipedia (as there has never been any "Geoff Barrenger" article) and is certainly irrelevant to claims for Den Schliker, which you seem to be discussing.

When there is a need to criticize, use your words carefully. Like it or not, and whether Condé Nast likes it or not, Schliker's work is obviously relevant to fashion photography. Whether it's notable within fashion photography is a different question.

Even if all were to agree that a certain photographer's work is not significant, this would be no reason to be rude either about the photographer or about somebody who has tried to write him up.

Stop and think hard before you write any comment, especially if you are angered or disgusted by another editor's work here. You might also remember that anybody here can claim to be anybody, and that most people here are fully aware of this; therefore a claim to be working for Condé Nast (for example) looks hollow even if it happens to be true. -- Hoary (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]