It isn't. Some other person seems to have given up waiting for my response. (Was I away so long?) Indeed, I'm not sure that it ever was. Anyway, I responded. -- Hoary (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, you seem to be able to communicate in Japanese and have interest in Japanese culture. An editor/article might benefit from your experience.[1]littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 02:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your appreciative words. Well, this then consumed a large chunk of my Thursday. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Hoary
thanks a lot for your great job you did in unmasking that self-appointed genius of photography! I have the Rome article on my watchlist since I am roman, (although he wrote that I am one "...who doesn't seem to know what Spanish Steps are..."), and if I had followed his same strategy (and ethics), now we would have a large part of the articles about the roman churches illustrated with (beautiful and professional) pictures from the weddings of my best friends. Anyway, he is only playing dumb: he knows very well what he is doing, and why. Thanks again, and keep up the good work! Alex2006 (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, this person seemed to be doing half a dozen or so things, any one of which might be innocuous but the combination of which was quite undesirable. I'll refrain from giving my opinion of the Roman photograph, but will just say that if I'm to look at professional views of Rome, I'll take Alinari, Erwitt, Ciol. . . . Hoary (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pity, since his picture of the Spanish steps is really good. Above all, you can see the steps :-) In the last ten years the center became standing overcrowded with tourists: if you want to see a landmark you have to go there between 6 and 8 in the morning... This is the reason why I prefer old pictures too: when Rome was still Rome...20 years ago I found in Switzerland a travel album (paid 30 CHF :-)) with 50 Alinari pictures. It is one of my most precious books. Alex2006 (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That Alinari album was quite a find. Congratulations. I have (somewhere!) slim albums of Berlin and (surprisingly) Oslo from around 1910 which have excellent printing (though they're not by Alinari or any company I've heard of). I suppose they're the oldest photobooks that I possess. Oddly, the prices here (Tokyo) of such old albums are generally quite low: perhaps sellers don't think of them as "photobooks" and they therefore escape the absurd inflation that's afflicted "photobooks" (or many of them) during the last decade or so. -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment we are all living surrounded by a series of bubbles: the photobook (and generally book) price bubble is only one of them...As system engineer I learned that when a system behaves in this way is not stable anymore: I only hope that before it finds a new stability region it will not crush down all of us (and our books :-)) Alex2006 (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings about Abebooks, because it's yet another part of Amazon and thus a monopolizing force. But I do like the way it lets you register "wants". Low-priced copies of expensive books can appear, but then you have to pounce quickly. At any time, I have dozens of wants. My own fabric-of-the-Italian-city treasure is Roberto Salvini, Il duomo di Modena (1972) -- bought in Modena, and carried to Tokyo. Not that it's at all a rarity: Abebooks tells me that one dealer would send me a copy from France for as little as $21. Now, if it instead had been put together in a couple of weeks, with overexposed photos of the photographer's friends having sex and shooting up drugs, it would be highly fashionable and copies would cost at least five times as much! -- Hoary (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see that we have more in common than the fight against commercial spammers in wikipedia. :-) I have about 50 wants too, but for a strange rule, the best occasions appear always in the night or when I am on vacation. I use also often on vialibri, but there the wants have a price :-) . It is also true that not always important books must be a rarity: For example, there are a couple of German photo books about Rome appeared in the fifties, which are (still) cheap, but are priceless, since they describe a disappeared world... If you like an "esthetic" image of the city, a nice book is "Roma ancora" by Giancarlo Gasponi. Appeared in the early eighties, I think that it is still in print. Alex2006 (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, when I look at the front cover of Roma ancora, sorry but I'm not inspired to investigate further. If it were instead in B/W, it would be much more appealing. It's not that I'm against color: far from it. But there's something about color that turns into kitsch certain genres of photography that are acceptable (if not exciting) as long as they are in B/W. I remember that when Mrs Hoary and I were in Venice, the city was of course marvelous but most of the photobooks of it were terribly dispiriting. We were not at all tempted by the best-sellers by Fulvio Roiter et al, and instead bought B/W photobooks by Giuseppe Bruno and (of Italy in general) by Elio Ciol. (Actually both of these books now look staid to me, and I'm sure there are more interesting alternatives. I wonder what Arif Aşçı would make of Venice.) Who are these Germans? I thought of Peter Cornelius (whose work I've only seen in the occasional jpeg), but I'm not aware of any book on Rome. -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Telepathy :-) Actually I wanted to write that for me the only problem with Gasponi is that his pictures are not B/W, but then I renounced... I don't like Reuter too: it's just "fotografia di consumo su carta patinata" :-) Yes, I know Aşçı: my wife is Istanbullu, and in Turkey he is a celebrity. We saw an exhibition about him in Rome last year. If you like Aşçı, then I am sure that you like Ara Güler too! My brother is a passionate photographer, and when he visited Istanbul with us for the first time last September, I presented him with a book of Güler. These German books about Rome are photojournalism books: not much architecture, above all people. I have to look when I am in Rome. Anyway, I remember that the publisher of one of them is Laterna Magica Verlag, a German house specialized in photobooks. Alex2006 (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aşçı seems unknown here in Japan, other than for the fact that Higashikawa's overseas photographer award went to him last year. I thought that the award might lead to some Japanese publication, but unfortunately Japanese photobook buyers seem to have a limited appetite for this kind of photography, and whether for this or for other reasons there's been no publication that I've heard of. ¶ I saw a new book of older work by Güler and the best parts of it were good; but some was like Izis at his less exciting, and the book was expensive. Do you have a particular recommendation among Güler's books? ¶ You're making the German books sound more interesting. One book I'd like to see is Bruno Barbey's The Italians = Les Italiens. Surely a fair quantity were printed, but the used copies that I notice are priced high. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you like Barbey, you will enjoy my German books about Rome, which are a spaccato of the roman life in the fifties, and are also not pricey at all. My books of Güler (rigorously Turkish edition, since I stole them from my father-in-law :-)) are at home in Istanbul (yes, I like to commute :-)). The book which I presented is "Ara Guler's Istanbul: 40 Years of Photographs", (I bought the Italian edition by Electa) and is a florilegium of his Istanbul pictures, most of them from the fifties and sixties, a few ones (the least interesting) from the eighties. The book bears also the name of another author, a certain Pamuk :-), but it is only a marketing gag. Ohran only wrote the (short) introduction, maybe as a dankeschön for the fact that Güler's photos illustrate (badly) his book about Istanbul. BTW, if you like also reading, you shouldn't miss it. For me it is Pamuk's best work! Alex2006 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough two months ago I came across that very same book by Pamuk, on offer for mere pennies at some branch of Book Off. I bought it, stuffed it into my suitcase, and I suppose I must have unpacked it and put it somewhere but I've no idea where. Must look. I do remember that the paperback was so cheaply produced that the dot-dot-dot-dot photographs seemed expendable. The next time you're in Istanbul, sorry I mean İstanbul, do please jot down some details of the German books. Incidentally, if you enjoy literate books (text only, no photos) about complex cities of a similar longitude, I warmly recommend Tomas Venclova's Vilnius: A Personal History; there are Polish, English and Lithuanian versions; perhaps other languages too, but according to WorldCat not Italian. (In Italian there is his Cinquantuno poesie e una lettera. He's primarily a poet, but I regret to say that all I've read by him are his three books about Vilnius.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the paper is awful also in the italian edition, barely sufficient to read the text... Yes, next time that I will be in Rome (my books about Rome are in Rome, those in Istanbul (per WP:COMMONNAME :-)) in Istanbul (practical, isn't it?) I promise that I will note authors and editors. P.S. I hope that during the weekend you survived your Auto-da-fé. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern. No, a stake has not yet been driven through my heart, and thus I continue to roam Wikipedia, spreading gloom, rats, and plagues. I've even accumulated one more trophy. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...wow, he deleted that pretty quickly. And for it, he's now threatening millions of dollars in damages for defamation and libel. This guy is a piece of work.
As a tenured Dutch inclusionist deletionist (or so I am reliably informed), you'll surely appreciate the curious charm of this kind of prose. I had to do more work on it; the result is intermittently still in what to me is a foreign language, but at least it's so flagged here and there, and conceivably some interested person can bring it closer to the conventionally encyclopedic. ¶ Meanwhile, I've been ruminating on the idea that a book might ruminate on the idea that sacred church music and non-sacred secular music about love can come from the same place if you subscribe to the belief that God is Love and Love is God. (This opuscule has few reviews; one among them is perhaps unintentionally revealing.) I have a love of websurfing during my breakfast; if I were able to say that I had a god of websurfing then I'd be able to say almost anything, e.g. that a Netherlandish Dutch person and a non-Dutch Belgian person came from the same place. Uh-oh, I'd better stop thinking, before my brain explodes. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been snooping on my Facebook page, where I recently notified the world that my daughter said at school that I was from Belgium? Of all places? That is one hell/heaven of a review. But I really came here to show you this: note that I'm an equal-opportunity offender and will spare no one, not even a wild-haired Dutchman. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that edit is like, radical, man. I suddenly realize that I need a new grindstone for my machete. ¶ Faced with a list of (claimed) exhibitions, one can demand evidence. Several times, e.g. here, I've even supplied it. Or anyway I did for most of the entries, but I burned out before completing the job for the solo exhibitions, let alone the group exhibitions. (I'd also intended to amplify the article about the man; but although I still have the highest regard for his photography, I needed a long break from the article.) ¶ Facebook? An acquaintance once insisted that the only way she could send me a file was via Facebook, so I faked an identity in order to join. I got the file, looked around a bit, didn't understand anything, forgot my name and password. Then every month or so I -- the real me, not the fake -- would get emails saying that this or that dimly/not remembered person wanted to be my fwend. (Thank you, would-be fwends, for telling Facebook my address. Not.) These days they all go straight into trash. (Meanwhile, I get similar but more solemnly phrased messages from something called Linkedin, which I infer is Facebook for people who like to wear suits. They go into trash too.) ¶ So your daughter outed you as a covert Belgian operative, eh? Good for her! (Ha ha, you artistic Belgians, you once had a monopoly on beer worth drinking, but alas no more.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for interrupt, User:Yeepsi did undo the previous revision, especially New Wave music, but Yeepsi put initial letters changed to small letter, new wave.
Please block Yeepsi with no expiry set (indefinite).
P.S. If somebody needs unblock, just don't unblock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofpyrus (talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not going to block Yeepsi. See this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 12[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martin Harrison (curator), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Conrad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! If you are not too busy, will you please take a look at my en-to-ja translation? 英語は難しいから、I might misread questions in en and please feel free to correct. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to help, but I have no idea of ja:WP terminology. Thinking that explaining the depth of my ignorance might take longer than looking up some terminology, I did the latter. Specifically, I went to ノート:北海道日本ハムファイターズ. (Because I've always been amused by the idea of a "ham fighter". "Ham actor", yes. But....) We see there that ウィキプロジェクト スポーツ / スポーツチーム has evaluated the article. This seems to me to make the second question superfluous. ¶ I'd say more, but I'm too sleepy now, sorry. Till tomorrow! -- Hoary (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take it too seriously; there could be lots of mistakes, of various kinds. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I corrected the translation. I think some of your translation are far better than mine, but some are not. I understand you do not like "?" in ja text. I know you are correct in a way and I removed it from the sentences with なに, but question mark is used as standard today. Remove the rest of "?", if you hate to see them in ja text. Cheers! Oda Mari (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't mind at all. But in one or two places I thought (rightly or wrongly) that your Japanese seemed a bit too much like a translation (not that I am qualified to judge), and that's what made me (i) think of the question marks too, and then (ii) replace the question marks with quasi-periods. I do know that question marks are widely used in Japanese even after 「か」, but somehow they seemed to emphasize the, what shall I call it, the questioniness, and I thought that the poor readers might feel as if they were being interrogated. ¶ If you're feeling grateful and generous, look at the top right-hand corner of my humble user talk page! -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ashamed to admit it, but I almost hope to see people throw insults your way. Your translations are delicious. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 07:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, thank you. Yes, I do derive some merriment from the less flattering analyses of my personality. (Such nonsense aside, I did something constructive today.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sifted through about 500 vandalism edits today to analyze Twinkle edits. I saved some of the gems, thought you deserved a laugh in kind.[2]littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 21:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oof, one of those has an URL that promises a revision of a user talk page; click on it, and it's somewhat more "intimate" than expected; page down, and "NSFW" would be an understatement. Lucky I wasn't tablet-browsing in a commuter train. Yes, "vandalism" is a funny term. Of course plenty of people use it to mean "reversion of my edits by somebody who disagrees with me", and similar; but that aside, it's widely used for edits whose undesirability is hardly controversial but that don't strike me as "vandalism" in any normal sense of the word. But if this is so, it's in keeping with WP, which habitually extends the meanings of words and phrases (e.g. "consensus", "original research") in odd ways. -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw on the wikimedia webcite proposals that you had html tags in there, I wasn't sure if that was a mess up or not but the header tags work on their own also, no need for the html/body. Anywho, if you already knew that then disregard and feel free to trout me haha xD. — -dainomite 21:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but . . . perhaps simply because I haven't yet had my second coffee of the day, I don't understand. My point was that this nefarious-sounding website now sports a top page that's almost completely blank, and so I showed it in full, from the very start to the very end. (Of course there may be more to this: conceivably the site could sniff where you are or what browser you're using, and then decide whether to feed you malware or something totally innocuous.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I misread your comment over there. I had just woken up from a nap and wasn't in full possesion of my faculties yet, I didn't realize you were quoting another website when you put...
<html><body><h1>It works!</h1></body></html>
... in your response. Huzzah for not thinking clearly... Sorry, — -dainomite 02:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really enjoyed reading your excellent article on John Bulmer. Some of his photographs brought back vivid childhood memories, such as this one of men in Hartlepool bringing back sacks of coal dust they found on the beach. Hope everything continues to go well in Japan. Must get back to photography myself one of these days.--Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted to learn that you like it, Sir. (Oh, and thank you for upping its grade. Though I've since downgraded it as a TV-related article.) Well, I started it in the usual way I adopt for articles on subjects of particular interest to me: a fairly exhausting search for "references". Perhaps luckily, there weren't impossibly many, so I retained enough energy to proceed. And as I continued, my spirits rose to about where they were when I'd started.
Surely the sacks aren't of coal dust; this would be irretrievable. The book talks of "coal washed up by the tide". If I remember correctly what I've read about "sea coal" elsewhere on the British coast, it was low-grade stuff simply dumped into the sea by mining companies that didn't think it worth their while. Whatever it was, gathering it must have been a dreadful job even in the best of weather, an agonizing one in freezing conditions. It has a special place in the history of British photography because it's conspicuous in (and one photo appears on the front cover of) Chris Killip's highly regarded (and excellent) book In Flagrante. Copies of this latter book (the real thing, from Secker & Warburg) are plentiful but tend to cost somewhere between "a lot" and "as much as a sensible person would pay for a car"; a later edition from Errata is of much reduced size. So the second book you should get is instead Killip's Seacoal, which presents the relevant photos from In Flagrante and other good ones besides, all excellently printed and for a sensible price.
That's the second. First, get yourself a copy of John Bulmer's The North. Well over two hundred pages, generous format, decent printing, very attractive price. And as you've seen, excellent photography. If, like me, you have no space for more books, just toss out one or two old ones to make space for it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do happen to have the same book problem as you. I'll think seriously about getting rid of some of the old ones. As for coal dust, maybe it's not the correct term but the small particles washed up from coal seams out at sea, make it look a bit like a coating of dust on the beach. In fact it's almost as fine grained as the sand itself - and it's certainly not the result of mining companies chucking it back into the sea. Take my word for it! --Ipigott (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on reading a bit more, I realize that people may be doing seaside opencast mining. However, see what's written about Blackhall beach. Hmm, time permitting, I may investigate this a bit further. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strange we should have got off on a tangent here. It seems to me the Blackhall incident was a one-off. The usual cause of the coal deposits is erosion of coal seams by the sea. There's an interesting report here and a photo here. --Ipigott (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There's now no article for Sea coal. There is a dubious disambig page for Seacoal, distinguishing between (A) Seacoal (film), an article with no independent sourcing whatever on a film that I believe does merit an article, and (B) the claim that the word is an archaism for "coal" (a claim that surprises me, but I don't have the OED to hand right now so can't check). It doesn't mention Seacole. Somebody should turn this disambig page into an article on seacoal (with or without a space), with a hatnote linking to the film and the surname. That somebody could be me, but I know less than, er, well, to take a not entirely random example, yourself; I'm lazier than you; I do have printed sources but they're not with me right now; and I've already resolved that I'll first tackle the stunningly terrible "Artists' perspectives" section of the article on color photography. But if somebody (conceivably the chap you see in your shaving mirror) were to have a bash at an article on sea( )coal, I'd be along later, promise. (As for color photography, I'll be "bold", which will involve essaying something on my computer and only plugging it in when I'm certain that, no matter how crappy it might be, it's hugely better than what's there now. So expect a period of apparent inactivity.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we should spend any more time on sea coal, especially as I have a much more captivating proposal. As you may know, March is "Women's History Month". Last year I participated in a drive to improve coverage of Women in architecture which seems to have been pretty successful. This year, I suggest we should do the same for women in photography. As you know, there is already a list of about 100 names of women photographers but no article. I suggest we should start by developing the list on the basis of the List of female architects, i.e. on a country-by-country basis with a few words on the archievements of each. In addition, there are about 100 more women in Category:Women architects, many of which are of historical interest. And finally, many of the Wikipedias in other languages contain lots of interesting background and biographies which could be added to the English wiki. Interested? Should something be posted on the WikiProject?--Ipigott (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interested, definitely. But I have a serious problem: That I'm in what's called full-time employment. Obviously it's not full time, but I do have a lot of things to do in March. It would be fun to cooperate with you in something like this, but I could only do a tiny percentage of the work that would be involved. For those who did want to do it, there's a fat book by Naomi Rosenblum whose title promises to cover the subject. I don't know the book, but I'd guess that it will be very conscientious and reliable on what it does cover, but heavily slanted to the US. (Which perhaps isn't so terrible, given the high percentage of Americans among very notable women photographers.)
among whom the lastmentioned is a bit obscure. Other more or less significant women I can think of off the top of my head are Emi Anrakuji, Mikiko Hara, Hisae Imai, Mao Ishikawa, Michiko Kon, Sachiko Kuru, Michiko Matsumoto, Yurie Nagashima, Mika Ninagawa, Yuki Onodera, Kei Orihara, Tsuneko Sasamoto, Tomoko Sawada, Lieko Shiga, Toyoko Tokiwa, Kayo Ume, Miwa Yanagi, Ruiko Yoshida; and I could write a sentence for four out of five of these, I suppose; but I can't turn such a list into any kind of narrative. Actually if I did have time to do something, I'd rather devote it to a single photographer (not necessarily Japanese) who both (i) seems "notable" in the odd WP sense and (ii) has an oeuvre I enjoy. I mean, as I look at the two lists above of lady photographers, I'd only bother to go to an exhibition by one in four of them at most; I usually have trouble working up enthusiasm for writing about people for whose work I have no enthusiasm. (Meanwhile, even the most widely known and most eligible photographers have crap articles: Consider Mary Ellen Mark for example.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the details. It'll all be a great help in covering Japan. I'm revamping the List of women photographers on a country-by-country basis (in a sandbox until tomorrow) so we'll at least have a good section on Japan. I fully agree with you that many of the existing biographies leave a lot to be desired. One of the priorities should be to improve the most notable ones. And there's no real rush. If I remember correctly, our work on women architects lasted until late April. Do you think it would be useful to add something on WP History of photography? Perhaps you could also suggest some editors who might like to contribute?--Ipigott (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors? Hmm, Lopifalko, TheMindsEye, Alessandro57=Alex2006 (Italy and Turkey). Perhaps later I'll think of more. Meanwhile, I'm afraid the Wikiproject is moribund; I got tired of fanning the embers. In your list, don't forget Azerbaijan: Rena Effendi. She's just one of the photographers shortlisted for the most recent Prix Pictet. About which, you may find this blackly humorous. (I had a feeling of déja vu, and eventually unearthed this.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you have begun contributing to the list. On the red-linked Japanese ladies, I could add a line or two on each one in the main space but it would be far better if you could cover them yourself, especially as most of the on-line info is in Japanese. The reason I included them as red links is that when we were handling the architects last year, we found it useful to have red links with a reference so that they would not be missed. Nearly all the red links were finally covered. Not sure what your "dubious" was about.--Ipigott (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, a problem is that when I look at the seven red links above, though I'm sure that an article on each would be justified, I'm not at all inclined to write any. One photographer is an expert and witty exponent of a genre that doesn't interest me. One's an uninteresting (I think) sensationalist. I'm grateful to one, because I had a hunch that her books were priced high when I saw a copy priced low, and I bought it in order to resell it and actually succeeded in this, making 2,000 yen from it. One seems almost totally forgotten these days, and neither the web nor books would be of much help. One is very popular and to me ... pleasant (no more). The work of one I actually like; she became known after the "girly photo boom" of the 90s and the lack of resemblance between that lot and her work is part of what makes the latter of interest to me. ¶ Meanwhile, how's this hagiography? -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC) ¶ On the charge of dubiousness: When you go to miyakoyoshinaga.com/artists/Emi_Anrakuji/reviews/2008_international_photo_magazine.pdf, does your browser show anything about Anrakuji's handmade books, or anything by Iizawa? Mine doesn't. Instead, despite the filename, it shows a web page (I mean, not a PDF file). And it's a very uninformative web page. -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC) ¶ Did/do you instead perhaps mean this PDF (linked from that oddly named web page)? -- Hoary (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a Japanese file, not the English-language one I get. It's the first of the review files shown on the other page. Unfortunately the text is not machine-readable but the actual text reads: "Her achievements since then have been impressive: starting with her book 17 9 '97 in 1998, by 2006 she already had published twelve compilations of her photography and produced fashion photography and portraits for magazines, making her one of Japan's most popular photographers." There's quite a bit more about her. But the reference to her books comes from this: "A prolific producer of images, Anrakuji often arranges her work as handmade books, one of which serves as the catalyst for IPY. A special edition with original print is also available. Anrakuji suddenly appeared on the photography scene after more than 10 years of hiatus from art-making." And I found lots of other sites referring to her handmade books. I just didn't want to overload the list with all those refs. I may as well have written an article -- if she's notable.
And here I must say I'm a bit confused. I thought you had sent me all those red-linked names because you thought they were notable enough to be included. From what you say above, I now have my doubts. Perhaps even some of the Japanese blue links should be removed -- there were so many articles with just one line saying so-and-so is a notable Japanese photographer! --Ipigott (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The redlinked photographers are people who were given exhibitions in the Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography, who've been published by Nazraeli or similar, who've been much talked about, etc. On average they're about as "notable" as are the bluelinked Japanese photographers. An article on any of them shouldn't end up at AfD, though any lunacy is possible. But as I look at the combined Japanese list above, red- and bluelinked, I see a small number of photographers I'd regard as truly notable surrounded by a number who are, um, workwomanlike or merely modish. I'm not knocking you for failing to add Ilse Bing -- I'm sure you'd have added her in a flash had her name occurred to you -- but I'd rate her as more notable than any of them, arguably than all of them together. Though I'd be delighted if somebody else turned the redlinks blue, and would of course defend any of the results against AfD silliness, I'd rather be sorting out "seacoal" or the history of colo(u)r photography. ¶ As for why en:WP is bristling with tedious substubs about Japanese photographers, see this and this. ¶ Sorry to sound anywhere between negative and very negative about all of this; I would of course be delighted if there emerged some wonderful article about woman photographers that dealt with such figures as Shima Ryū, Dorothea Lange, Berenice Abbott, Ilse Bing, Helen Levitt, Inta Ruka, Cristina García Rodero, Bieke Depoorter and Rose-Lynn Fisher. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still have this page on my watchlist, and although I seldom check it, I noticed this discussion, resulting in a new article on Swedish photographer Anna Riwkin. --Hegvald (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I haven't bothered with DYK for the last several articles I have written, as I usually can't think of anything of particular interest for a hook (e.g. there was absolutely nothing "hooky" to use in Axel Kock), but if you can think of something, you're welcome to nominate it. --Hegvald (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The name Anna Riwkin meant nothing to me, I'm sorry to say; but as I read the article I became sure I'd recently read about her series of books about children around the world. Unfortunately I can't remember where I was reading it. I guessed that "Surash" was the same as Surazh, altered accordingly, and derived another category from this. If you doubt any of this, please don't hesitate to revert me. ¶ I've never bothered with "DYK", partly because I virtually never look at the list of "DYK"s on the top page, partly because when I tried to read about the application process some time ago it sounded complex and I dozed off while still reading. -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did a cleanup for Paul Thomas, the past VC for USC. Would you mind to review it to see if it's deep enough for the tag to be removed? I will have a look at the actual university as well when I get the time. Good eye for the COI btw. Thanks. Dengero (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly improved it a lot; thank you. But I think that the COI flag should stay. The author of the article painted a very rosy picture of the university and associated the biographee with it. This has survived the (proper and welcome) removal from the article of obvious boosterism. This picture may be a fair one; I really don't know. I wonder whether/how the portrayal of USC in the article about it will change once knowledgable but disinterested editors have examined that article. -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're good articles too. Of course I already knew of Manuel Álvarez Bravo, but I'm terribly ignorant of Mexican photography: Off the top of my head I'd only be able to name him, his wife, Tina Modotti, Graciela Iturbide and Lourdes Grobet. And the photojournalist whose coverage of grisly car wrecks has suddenly become modish -- Enrique Metinides, that's the man. Oops, no, Tina Modotti wasn't Mexican. Duh.
Me, for over a year I was too busy/lazy to construct new articles, but I woke up (a bit) a month or so ago. The most substantial article since then: John Bulmer. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at the picture of the album cover of Isaac Serbau's photos: [3]. I saw that in today's news. It might be interesting for you. Wiki about the Belarusian photographer is available only in Russian and Belarusian: [4].
Ximar (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear from you! And good to hear about this man, and the new book (especially as I can easily read one of its three languages). I found the page. I even found a company that would sell/send a copy to me -- but 148 USD? Ouch. Do you happen to know of any web page that shows more than just one or two photos by Serbau?
The ru:WP article about Serbau seems to be very dry. Perhaps this helps Google Translate; anyway, Google provides an English translation that's very understandable (or maybe it just creates such an illusion). -- Hoary (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here there are 18 photos in the category "Isaak Serbov". But I am not sure whether they are included in the above album.
Here: folkblog.in.ua/index.php?newsid=365 (the URL is somewhy blacklisted in the Wikipedia) there are some pictures, too (maybe the same).
They say in the above article that the book contains all photos from Serbau's collection and includes all comments by the photographer and the compiler. The book is published by the Belarusian Encyclopedia Publishing House within the Rarity Encyclopedia series. Presented on Feb 22, 2013. ISBN: 978-985-11-0679-6. Hard cover, 60×100 1/8, 2012, 456 p. Compiler: V. Labacheuskaia.
If you use Google Translate, I can compare the translation. Ximar (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Click through to see this extraordinary panorama by Inha. And make sure to see the full-size version!If you mean translating ru:Сербов, Исаак Абрамович in order to create Isaac Serbau or Isaak Serbau, no, I really don't want to do that, because the Russian article doesn't say precisely what comes from precisely where. Right now, I'm rather more interested in the photographs. I'm very ignorant of the photography of what is or once was Russia; but little by little I learn about impressive ethnography: Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky, of course, but also Max Penson, Johannes Pääsuke, I. K. Inha, and more. The value of their work (other than for ethnography) varies, of course. (Inha, for example, is first-rate. It's odd that there's no article on him either here or in ru:WP.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't mean creating the Serbau page. If you doubt about a Google translation from Russian/Belarusian and want to clear up it, I can help you. Inha's photos are great, but I was more impressed when I saw Prokudin-Gorsky's color photos of the early 19th c. However, unlike Serbau, he is not considered an ethnographer. About Inha, that's strange, but I have found only one page with his photos in Russian. Ximar (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for the offer! Yes, I may gratefully take it up at some point. A different matter, but can you think of anyone who has an article here and deserves to be added to "List of women photographers"? -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you need my help in Russian/Belarusian, email me, because I visit Wikipedia not so often. As to women photographers, that's a hard question for me, I haven't met yet such ones (maybe because I'm not so good in the photography history). Ximar (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry that I did not understand about COI – I joined up (they told me to be bold) and I practiced edits on the USC article– as well as creating my Thomas article that I was knowledgeable about and BAM this week, I am now the enemy - I guess I have learnt that I have lots to learn about Wikipedia and its rules.
I totally adore Wikipedia (and I am even a Wikipedia donor) and I just wanted to be a hobby Wikipedian and enjoy the experience of contributing – so all my images and content that have been added to articles have been done outside of work ie Good Friday image.
I don’t know what more I can say except that I have decided to retire from Wikipedia because my COI on my beloved article and I respectfully ask that you remove the tags “close connection” to the two articles that I was connected to because I will not be editing them again.
Best wishes and I can I request all the editors that have been involved in this article put it on their watch list - so no one vandalises my created Paul Thomas article x
No, Di, you're not the enemy, so please don't think that you are. And you're right: WP does entice people to "be bold", which I've long thought was poor advice (if well intentioned). Perhaps people then shouldn't be blamed for editing boldly rather than first taking time to read several of WP's long and somewhat soporific policy pages.
The articles you created/augmented had a lot of more or less promotional language. That problem has now been pretty much fixed. They also had a number of assertions for which sources should have been provided but weren't. This problem remains. You can help the articles (and help their other editors, and generate goodwill, etc) if you'd attend to these unsourced assertions. The best way to do it is to comment on the respective talk pages: "For the assertion that XYZ, here's a source: PQR". Or "For the assertion that ABC, I now realize that I was using first-hand knowledge. I doubt if I can find a source that's right for the purpose. So please delete it." Then other editors can edit accordingly.
With help like this, both articles will come to be assemblages of sourced facts. If there were any conflict of interest earlier, it will no longer matter: facts sourced to independent sources are facts, no matter who collected those facts. And then the COI flags can be removed.
You may also wish to choose a new username and edit under your new name. The two usernames can run concurrently, too -- as long as you're not using one username in order to do such things as provide "independent" (ha ha) support for the other in arguments (let alone in order to edit while the other is blocked), you'll be OK. Then when Dsouthwe's work is done, this old username can be retired and you can happily continue to use the new username.
Or you can continue to edit as Dsouthwe. Though Dsouthwe's earlier edits were criticized, they didn't trigger a block or anything like it. Many of us make mistakes here "when young". Dig through my early edit history and you'll probably find various horrors. -- Hoary (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hoary – I have already put in a request to change my user name because it is very similar to my real name. Honestly I don’t have enough accurate knowledge on the USC page to be an editor there - so will happily not edit there again. I was just sourcing USC for citations to reference my contributions on the Thomas article "when young"
I guess I need to know from you Hoary, can I edit the Thomas article again – given that I am connected to Thomas vaguely by working at USC?
Sure, yes, go ahead. I don't think that I've ever started to write about somebody with whom I was already acquainted, but I have become acquainted with a handful of people after writing about them. I'd like to think that if you looked at a list of people whose articles I've edited, you'd never guess which among them I'd met. Part of this is a matter of ruthlessly deleting anything that might sound promotional. For example, if one of these people has won a prize that you, I, and any informed, reasonable person would call prestigious, I'll simply say that she won the such-and-such prize, not that she won the prestigious such-and-such prize. People can click on the link to the such-and-such prize and decide for themselves whether it's prestigious. This often means that the dry stuff I write is quite different from the more effusive stuff that I really think that I'm entitled to write, but if I want to write the latter, I know that this is not the website for it. So, try hard to edit the article on Thomas as if you had never met him and indeed knew nothing about him other than what you'd read in newspapers, etc.
Incidentally, if you don't want your real name to be traced, you shouldn't apply to have your username changed, because the links from the new username to the old one, and from the old name to your real name, will still be easy to find. Better just to stop using your current username and start using a different one. Though if the subjects of interest to the new username are much the same as those of interest to the old one, your identity will still be obvious.
In your situation I'd continue to use the current username for winding up work on its/your current interests, use a new one for other interests, and in the space of a few weeks stop using the old one. Just read and understand this; and, during your short transition period, make trebly sure that you're never logged in as one username while editing as the other!
Hmm, yes, simpler all round: continue to use your current username to tie up loose ends. Then stop using it. Return as a different username. Don't then mention the older username. -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again Hoary - all good advice --Dsouthwe (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About that whole thing with the professor and the university - we received a request via OTRS asking that the information be removed. I had no idea you were a sysop, otherwise I'd have requested it from you, but Dougweller saw the ticket and offered to do it. As I explained to the user, while we do have a policy against outing, in this case she pretty much gave herself away, and in the context of trying to decide what COI there is, we don't necessarily tiptoe around who's who. As explained by her, this was all a misunderstanding, WP:AGF and all that. So fair enough. Anyway, we good. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All's well, I think. Oh, I suppose that you looked at the section immediately above this one, but if not.... -- Hoary (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just advising you to write a custom message for the IP mentioned at WP:ANI, "User page vandalism and talk page incivility", since I think a template would be used as an attack by many people. Nyttend (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're probably right. I sometimes write such custom messages myself. Something like: Your edits [example] and [example] suggest that you have vivid fantasies about [whatever]. Your descriptions of your fantasies are of no interest to the readers of or other contributors to Wikipedia. If you feel compelled to post them on the internet, please do so on some other website, perhaps your own. Perhaps half the time, these messages are very effective: the perp shuts up. Sometimes the perp instead goes bananas, so dramatically that another admin notices this and blocks him. Or again another admin may complain that I'm feeding the troll (something that I do normally try to avoid, e.g. by avoiding warning templates with little red graphics). But I don't recall having advised a perp to seek psychiatric help. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your additions to the list. It's beginning to look quite presentable now, especially the Japanese section. As you may have noticed, I've written quite a few new biographies myself over the past few days. If you have time, you could perhaps have a look a some of them and make any additions or alterations you see fit. Any chance of your covering the other red linked Japanese ladies you sent me or should we just forget them? And is it really the case there is such a dearth of women photographers from Italy, Spain and Latin America? Maybe you have some relevant photobooks (if you haven't already thrown them out)?--Ipigott (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd noticed your activity. Well done! I haven't done anywhere near as much; but I have helped in one way or another with Mikiko Hara, Kei Orihara, Fusako Kodama (all of which are still perfunctory), and Miwa Yanagi (still poor). Over the next month or so, I'll be increasingly desperate for spare time, but shall happily look at the articles you created (or anyway those of them that I notice). -- Hoary (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could also say well done to you. You have certainly been making a valient effort for someone so taken up with professional life. As you did not respond to my query on Italy, Spain and South America, I'll assume that you have no interesting names to add. And now I'll get back to covering the last few red links on my talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry, no, I have no Italian, Spanish or South American names I can add off the top of my head. I do (somewhere) have two books that are historical surveys of aspects of Italian photography. I have access to a copy of the recent (fascinating) book from Aperture about Latin American photobooks. I have nothing about Spain -- but I do have access to what might actually be the easiest reminder. It's a pocketbook about one Spanish photographer (Cristina García Rodero if I remember right) within a series of one book for each of at least thirty Spanish photographers: I can read the list and look for female-sounding names. I have to take a break now for an hour or so, but then I promise to start looking through your recent articles. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IE? That's a name from the past! (I'm using Iceweasel and Epiphany on this old machine; I'll soon replace its OS and then give it Iceweasel again, Chromium [not a typo], and Rekonq.) Erm . . . you could use an additional browser. Yes, I'll look at those articles, but sorry I need to sleep first. (Oh, one tiny point related to Arndt: You mention a "downloadable PDF", but I can't imagine any other kind of PDF.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done! And now, time for dinner. -- Hoary (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hoary. Regarding this, how is the link spurious? Is it that you meant that the Ebonics article is now a disambiguation page (turned into one today) and that the Ebonics (word) article now contains what the Ebonics article used to contain, or is it that you feel that the reviewer should not have used the term "ebonics"? If the first, why didn't you simply disambiguate the link? Flyer22 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I click on the link within the reference for the quotation from which I removed four bytes, I'm told Page Not Found / You seem to have searched for something that doesn't exist. Maybe try searching the site. Sorry, can't be bothered. I'll assume that somebody said or wrote this. But I'll also assume that if it was written, then the writerthe author of the source didn't link that word to any WP article. (And if it was instead saidby somebody who was quoted in this written material, then it can't have been linked.) I'll give thatthe undesirability of tampering (however well-intendedly) with text clearly ascribed (via quotation marks) to a different writer as my reason for removing it.
That aside, the quotation seems to demonstrate ignorance of language: the rhythms of teenage slang (including painful forays into ebonics) is obscure, but seems to imply that a lect is an ingredient of slang. Ridiculous. (The opposite might be true.) Course, I might have misread this; but if so, then the writing is bad. -- Hoary (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC) ... clarified (with underlined new bits, and strike-outs) -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining, though I'm confused what you mean by "then the writer didn't link that word to any WP article." Do you mean the author of the source or the Wikipedia editor? I assume that you mean the Wikipedia editor (which, in this case, is me), because it doesn't matter if the source's author linked to Wikipedia as long as the source is a WP:Reliable source. But then you make me think that you mean the source's author because you stated, "I'll assume that somebody said or wrote this." Regarding that, I mean that it doesn't matter if the Wikipedia editor said it. Yes, the quote is currently supported by a WP:Dead link; when tweaking parts of the article earlier this month (on March 11), I had looked on Internet Archive to find a replacement, but didn't find one. Just now, however, I searched the Internet with the article's title and found where the source had been moved to. See this url. The section where the aforementioned text is mentioned is in The plot-level section.
Though per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Linking, linking within a quotes is something that should generally not be done, I feel that the Ebonics (word) article should be WP:Pipelinked for ebonics since a lot of people don't know what ebonics means. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, you caught me last night (my time) when I was (a) sleepy and (b) in a bad mood. The bad mood was caused by this half-baked renaming of "Ebonics" to "Ebonics (word)". I'm not aware that the proposal was ever brought up. (Certainly there's no mention of it on what is now "Talk:Ebonics (word)".) Had it been brought up, I'd have happily agreed to it -- IFF the person proposing it also volunteered to do a lot of the disambiguation work that it would require. But no: however well intended, this seems to have been a drive-by page move.
When it's one hour past my bed time, one of the few things that's less appealing than disambiguating a lot of links to "Ebonics" is persuading somebody else to do the same, and very likely having to disabuse the editor of silly notions about "Ebonics", etc etc. So I did the former. This of course brought to my attention a lot of silly talk in articles about "Ebonics", which did nothing to improve my mood. Anyway, I disambiguated every damn link in articles, and then went to bed.
So here's what your source says: The plot-level elements are satisfying, but at the level of the dialogue things begin the [sic] break down. The series’ writers never have a good grip either of the rhythms of teenage slang (including painful forays into ebonics) nor the erudite beats of businessmen. With "begin the break down" where "begin to break down" might make sense, Arbuckle's prose too is beginning to break down. That aside, he's describing not real-world language (either competence or performance) but instead something that appears in a concoction that (in his words) is firmly couched in both the pop television and pop music traditions. But I really wonder where the fictionalizing is. I suspect that it's at least in part in Arbuckle's head. Either that, or his prose really has broken down, or my own experience of businessmen is (or memories of them are) defective. For wtf are businessmen's "erudite beats"?
One Tree Hill is a show I'd never heard of this time yesterday, and one that rings no bells even now that I do read of it. I appreciate your efforts to protect the article about it against apparent drive-by predators such as myself, but Arbuckle looks too confused for what he says to merit quoting, let alone glossing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a more detailed explanation with regard to your feelings on this matter, including the alteration of your initial comment above. As someone who watched most of One Tree Hill, I can attest that Arbuckle is using the word ebonics to refer to what is described in detail in the Ebonics (word) and African American Vernacular English articles. The writers had some of the characters use the language, and it was considered painful when a few of the characters spoke it. Painful because, to some viewers, such as Arbuckle, it seemed that the writers were trying too hard with the dialogue and/or were not getting the dialogue right. That's one of the criticisms of Season 2 of the series, which makes the text suitable for the paragraph discussing Season 2. Again, it seems best to me that the term be linked so that readers know what Arbuckle is describing, but I'm not hard-pressed on the link being there (especially because of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Linking guideline that I noted above). So if you would rather I not link the term ebonics with regard to the Arbuckle quote, I won't object any further. Someone else, however, might link to it in the future and they might do it in a way so that it doesn't conflict with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Linking guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're making a lot more sense about the dialogue than Arbuckle does. Instead of worrying over his wording, why not paraphrase? Perhaps something like: The writers fail to convince with the slang or Black English of the teens, or the language of businessmen. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll add in your suggestion when I trade out the dead link for the working link. We should still have the words "Arbuckle stated," or some variation of that, immediately in front of or immediately after your suggested wording, though, since it is an opinion. Feel free to do either or both of those things in the meantime, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please adjust to taste. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about your wording that I see needs adjusting. I fixed the dead link. It was nice discussing this matter with you and working on it. Have a great night (it's nighttime where I currently live, here in Pensacola, Florida). Flyer22 (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it say that it is not only in Anglophone countries that the linguistic effects of the African diaspora are felt? The way it looks, it gives one the impression that American Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese are uniform across subcultures, communities and regions, and that African influence are uniform on it. Since there is no other article that talks about such thing here, and since the English word Ebonics also serves this phenomenon, I felt it would be adequate, just to avoid an instance of systemic bias. Of course sources on the recent American debate are talking about English since English is their focus and their main, and in some cases solely, language, but what one would really understand is that there are no such similar cases to Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, etc. I have serious problems with finding sources and I am not really a productive Wikipedia user, so I think it would not be really helpful to have a separate article mentioning the non-English phenomena. What do you think? Lguipontes (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here (after markup-stripping) is what the article said, and says:
Ebonics (a blend of the words ebony and phonics) is a term that was originally intended to refer to the language of all people descended from enslaved Black Africans, particularly in West Africa, the Caribbean and North America
This is, I think, a correct description of the original use of the term.
This "language" would have to encompass what are conventionally regarded as Niger–Congo languages, Afro-Asiatic languages, Indo-European languages, and perhaps more. And it would have to encompass a great typological diversity. All in all it sounds to me like "natural language" in general -- the set of languages that accords with a hypothesized UG. In this case it doesn't really tell us anything. Alternatively, it's mere fantasy. However, that's not an appropriate place to add my views.
You added:
even though the trans-Atlantic dispersal of Africans also helped to create slangs and creoles particular to certain communities as well as regional varieties in Latin American countries
I suspect that we disagree radically on the meaning of the word "slang". So let's forget "slang" and concentrate on creole. Then yes, you're right. But why "even though"? Anyway, remember that we're not talking about a language or set of languages; we're instead talking about one idea about language(s) -- an idea that few linguists find convincing. -- Hoary (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being late, the main server of Wikipedia is not working on any language for my IP, so I used Google to look up a mirror for reading and I ended up discovering in some blog that I could use the mobile version (that luckily is working well here) for most purposes. I have no knowledge on most things, so yeah.
Well, I understand that such concept of placing AAVE according to it being spoken by those of West African heritage (that in itself is a pretty diverse thing) has little to do with Linguistics at all. And I understand that those that write about the so-called Ebonics have a focus on English. But I believe that, at least, the wording is wrong. It doesn't say the African diaspora also impacted Arabic, French, Spanish, and most especially (I believe) Portuguese, in a way where communities that spoke a certain register (be it a sociocultural variation in lexicon of the common language mostly limited to a certain group e.g. young people from Rio de Janeiro or São Paulo, urban tribes or certain occupation because of their shared identity, what we Brazilians know by gíria that can be freely translated as "slang"; a creole or anti-creole; or a lect created by de-creolization, what is the case of both AAVE and both vernacular and colloquial Brazilian Portuguese, with the first being quite distant to educated speech and the second a midway between the two) of African influence had such register as a differing factor between them and other communities, such as those associated with Arab- or European-descended elites, or past this time in the case of Brazil, also Christians and heterosexuals, and that such usage is limited to English because of systemic bias as the literature that speaks about Ebonics is composed nearly totally or totally, pardon my politically correct, of Anglophones describing experiences of Anglophones.
I know I sound a lot confusing. Being more simple, what I mean is that with the wording we have know, your average user will think that rather than Ebonics being an English word created by English-speaking writers describing an English-speaking experience, the reason why it describes [English-speaking] North American, Caribbean and West African phenomena, they will think it is limited to English because only English has particular sociolects of huge African influence that have set a contrast to the others – and it is not the case, see cafundó, a form of Brazilian Portuguese with a de-creolized Tupi-influenced caipira (strongly vernacular) grammar and a (mostly?) Bantu lexicon (thus a "reverse creole" of a de-creolization), while AAVE is more of grammar and phonology than lexicon if I am not wrong. While we may both disagree about the concept behind Ebonics, still it should not conduct to wrong reasonings.
In sum, if we are to expect that there are really various "Ebonics" out there, we would found them in Latin America, a lot more of Africa, the Middle East and Sri Lanka too, not just the places sources often refer to because it is in their span of knowledge and/or focus. And perhaps Europe, but AFAIK Ebonics may refer to sociolects but not to accents (though if I am not wrong it is Alcácer do Sal in Portugal that is long home to a "Moor" community and once had a lot of communication with sub-Saharans, but I never heard they spoke a very particular dialect or that the black Moors and slaves there weren't Arabized). Lguipontes (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the structure of the article. First:
Ebonics (a blend of the words ebony and phonics) is a term that was originally intended to refer to the language of all people descended from enslaved Black Africans, particularly in West Africa, the Caribbean and North America.
I think that this is correct, although it's unclear which "language" of language was/is intended. I think that it was thought of as a "language" in the way that Indo-European, for example, is sometimes described as a language. (NB I don't mean "Indo-European languages", plural, or "proto-Indo-European".)
One thing of which I'm pretty sure is that the family membership is genetic/historical and not typological. (In the past, talk such as this has brought angry responses from WP contributors who have no idea that the term "genetic" is used in linguistics [and indeed that its use in linguistics predates its use in what's now called genetics].)
NB nothing so far indicates that South America is excluded.
Now let's jump a bit and proceed:
John Baugh has stated that the term Ebonics is used in four ways by its Afrocentric proponents. It may:
1. Be "an international construct, including the linguistic consequences of the African slave trade";
2. Refer to the languages of the African diaspora as a whole;
or it may refer to what is normally regarded as a variety of English [...]
The first two of course encompass everything from Afro-Cuban languages in North America to Afro-Argentine languages in the far south.
You say:
if we are to expect that there are really various "Ebonics" out there, we would found them in Latin America, a lot more of Africa, the Middle East and Sri Lanka too, not just the places sources often refer to because it is in their span of knowledge and/or focus
I wonder about "we would [find] them". Perhaps this should be "we would find it". That point aside, yes. The people who coined the term "Ebonics" seem to have thought that black people carried it with them wherever they went. And I don't think they radically rejected the established history of migration. So if a handful of African people went to and settled in Mongolia (let's say), their language too would show or instantiate Ebonics (Baugh's first or second definition above).
Again, this all seems highly implausible to me, not least because the African diaspora included people whose languages were genetically unrelated. But all we can do is report what was written. Of course, if I'm overlooking published material from reliable sources that clarifies some of the meanings or makes the ideas more plausible, then this can be incorporated in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My whole point had to do with this section:
The people who coined the term "Ebonics" seem to have thought that black people carried it with them wherever they went. And I don't think they radically rejected the established history of migration. So if a handful of African people went to and settled in Mongolia (let's say), their language too would show or instantiate Ebonics (Baugh's first or second definition above).
I thought in a way that did respect general policy, purpose and weight and would let it clearer... But those quotes you used indeed are clear the sufficient (I just don't know if people will really get that there are African-influenced Portuguese, Spanish, Arabic, not just English, but anyway, it doesn't need to, as the "there may be" is already implicit/explicit). Thank you. Lguipontes (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hoary. Would you care to cast your considerate eye over my Laura Pannack article please? Thanks. Lopifalko (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Uh, you make her the recipient of half a dozen awards that aren't sourced. Each one really does have to be sourced. -- Hoary (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've done so. Thanks for your attention to detail. Lopifalko (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my question here, because it is a particularly interesting one.
After I changed an article to follow WP:MOS, I was attacked by another editor. Your comment: "I wonder if you're here in order to construct an encyclopedia or merely in order to waste people's time and/or be the center of attention."
What would an IP editor have to do in this situation to find your approval? --91.10.58.188 (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not "needed" as such, it was just a personal request for clarification. A pity. See you on WP:EAR. --91.10.57.242 (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, User:24.188.32.225 is still being abusive on my talk page and clearly has not taken any notice of the temporary block you gave him. Please help.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what you say is true. I've posted accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Give your girlfriend Quentis a big kiss too, bunch of losers. Good riddance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.32.225 (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you're leaving? Fine with me. -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other than my "thing" with hot totty Quentis. ¶ Incidentally, do you see this as some kind of plea for help? -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really appropriate to have these conversations about a user, like your secret little talk behind someone's back. I guess you don't have what it takes to say something to someone's face so this probably the best you can do. Why don't you grow up and be a man, or whatever it is you should be. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.223.47 (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted or removed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing.The key point to remember is that even if it seems obvious to you, if a user has not made their real-life information known on Wikipedia it is a violation of the outing policy to try and make those connections here yourself. This policy protects that user, you, me, and every other user who uses a pseudonym to edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely which of my many misdeeds are you referring to? -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its had to be oversighted, but you may recall that back in March you made a post on an article talk page attempting to tie a WP username to an email address posted on another website that also listed the apparent real name of that person. Even if it is just that easy to put together who a person reallly is, it is still a viioation of the outing policy. I am operating on the assumption that you were simply not aware of exactly how restricive the outing policy is (many users are not) and this was not done maliciously and now that you are aware of it there is no need to worry that it will happen again. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mr Brox. I've been away from the interwebs for some time, and now that I'm back I'm too rushed to attend to this particular kettle of worms. Back to normal in a few days, I expect; and I'll then email you. -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question here, because (on an unrelated matter) my email bounced...
Meanwhile, on Phillip R. Bennett (who was head boy in my year) I found an egregiously ambiguous date: he is expected to be released on 12/8/2022. I guess it is the US-and-the-rest-of-the-universe-outside-the-Earth format, but can only guess. And I don't understand how to flag things like that. It isn't "Needs citation", more "Needs checking".
Hoaryland swings like a pendulum do, Imagina. How's the Torium these days -- is there a Tory head on each of its spikes?
On this pair of edits: No, this is an example of what's called "original research" hereabouts. But this is only a minor fault in what's a disastrous article. At the top, we're warned: This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. (February 2010). The single source may or may not say what one vaguely infers that it says, but it can't possibly say anything about matters after October 2005. For years, this article (a "BLP") has cited no source whatever for such matters as "[pleading] guilty to all 20 charges of securities fraud and other criminal charges". I am therefore about to approach the article with editorial machete in hand.
If the material that you think needs flagging were to stay (and it is not going to), then I'd agree that it would need flagging. Lorryloads of warning flags are listed here. I'd look under the wonderful rubric "Contradiction and confusion" (here not an election-winning strategy for the Ukippers but a Bad Thing), and probably end up using humdrum "Vague". -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS the material I deleted smells plausible and a glance in google suggests that it's accurate. Thus my post here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I finally decided I should move this from my sandbox into the main space as it's getting longer and longer. As you can see, though, it's still got quite a way to go. Nevertheless I would appreciate your assistance or comments on the sections already there, especially on any important gaps in the history.--Ipigott (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. My problem is of fairly complete ignorance of the matter. Oh, the names of a number of the ladies are familiar to me; and in a quiz of which terribly famous photo was by which famous photographer I'd correctly attribute those by Cameron and Lange to Cameron and Lange. But for the rest, I'd have to do some reading. Not sure about the amount of time I'll have available. The other thing is, I can add item after item; but who's to say who's more significant than the others? Away from WP, I might be happy to do just this (certainly I'd delight in highlighting a few people who are largely ignored, and ignoring a few who are I think unjustifiably feted); but here, it's "original" research/synthesis/whatever. I'd better get hold of the book by Rosenblum and defer most of the decisions to her (and the rest of them to other people with doctorates in the matter). -- Hoary (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rosenblum does indeed seem to be the accepted authority on women photographers but like many others seems to put undue emphasis on the Americans. There's also lots of worthwhile stuff in Heron, Liz; Williams, Val (1996). Illuminations: Women Writing on Photography from the 1850s to the Present, most of it online. I'll also be expanding on the article myself. I hope to cover more of the history from the beginning of the 1940s, add a section on some of the more important photographers and trends in the countries not yet covered (including Japan of course), say something about awards and prizewinners, and perhaps something about what it notable about photography by women and how the profession is now much more open to women than it was. Maybe there should also be something on fashion, advertising, etc. It will probably be quite some time before I get to the end of it all but I think it is worthwhile as there are surprisingly few good online sources on the subject (apart from a few interesting snippets here). Let's just see how it goes. Thanks for your interest.--Ipigott (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the paragraph I've added to the Ford article. I don't think it violates Wikipedia policy, but I'd like you to look at it, if you could. Thanks! Alaney2k (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm no expert in this area of WP policy. It looks carefully written. It says that such-and-such says that somebody-somebody says such-and-such; as it has to (if it says anything at all). But the result is (I suppose necessarily) wordy. I don't understand the compulsion to publish this so quickly within WP. True, the story is spreading (e.g. here in the Guardian) but I'd have thought that very soon it will either (A) generate a story in a "reliable source" that isn't at third hand (I notice this), or (B) fizzle out. Worries about potential claims of libel aside, why shouldn't WP wait a bit? (Meanwhile, let's relax and savor a much shorter video.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to take a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research[edit]
Hi Hoary,
I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Japan talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to help academic study of Wikipedia, but I'm wary of sending email to editors with minimal editing histories. There is a person with your name at UCD, and that person has a web page there. If that person announces on that web page that yes, the en:Wikipedia editor Xiangju really is him or her (that you really are him or her), then I'll email you. -- Hoary (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hoary, yes, I'm the person I claimed to be. Thank you very much for willing to take your time for the survey. I just sent you an email about the survey questions. Best regards. Xiangju (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've given him a little break from WP. If he later seems to merit another break, please don't ask me. Instead, please post at "WP:AN/I". -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hoary, I am in the middle of an edit war with another editor and I need an admin to intervene. Firstly with the article Walk (Foo Fighters song). User:SuperVirtual keeps on adding information that is not directly supported by the source he is using. He is stating that the song was only released in Germany and quoting a linked source to the German iTunes page for the song. Apart from the fact that the song is available to down load pretty much in any country in the world, the source he is quoting does not specifically say that the song was released exclusively in Germany - and is therefore in breach of Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. I only speak a little German myself but can tell that the source does not give this information. Just to make sure I have requested, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Citing non-English sources, that the said user give a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.
OK, the next article, also a song by the same rock band is Arlandria (song), in which the same user is stating that the song was the second single from the affiliated album, in the United Kingdom. Again he quotes the UK iTunes page as a source, but again there is nothing in the source that says that the song was released as the second single in the UK, and is therefore again in breach of Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Further more I have given reliable news sources that say that the song is infact the third single: [5] and [6]. I have tried discussing this with the said user on both of the articles talk pages, yet he wants to turn it into an edit war. The user also appears to be Italian and has a poor grasp of the English language when attempting to discuss the issue. Please can you intervene. Many thanks.QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quintus, also you did a lot of edit war, not only me. You continued to undid my edits staying on your way and without read my arguments with attention. --SuperVirtual (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
QuintusPetillius, I can't see anything in what you say for which an admin is more qualified to help than is anybody else.
If your adversary indeed "wants to turn it into an edit war", then you warn him not to do so. If he ignores this and continues, you of course do not edit-war yourself, but instead report him to an admin, on the "edit warring" noticeboard.
In general, if you want an admin, don't ask a specific admin. Asking a specific admin can easily give an impression of cronyism, leading to complaints (perhaps even justified) that the system is rigged, that WP is an old boys' network, etc etc.
I'm not going to look at this dispute. But I note that it's about songs by Foo Fighters (a name that means nothing to me, sorry), that the talk page for their article points the reader to "WikiProject Alternative music", and that (unlike many WikiProjects) the project's own talk page shows that it's far from moribund. So in your position I'd post a short, neutrally worded note on the project's talk page, informing them that there's a content/sourcing dispute at such-and-such a place, and inviting cooler, seasoned heads to help resolve the dispute. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hoary. I've responded to your inquiry. I'm at work presently, so any further response may be delayed a bit. Not to worry, though, I will answer. Regards Tiderolls 13:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing the work. All's fine. (Incidentally, I'm not a fervent supporter of "WP:BLANKING"; I rather think that an IP's talk page shouldn't belong to any one person. But that's not "consensus".) -- Hoary (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after manually archiving my user talk for about four years I have little empathy for those that choose to blank their user talk. As you say, obtaining consensus regarding these points would be a pipe dream. I'm thinking we both have better things to do :) See ya 'round Tiderolls 17:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added Peter Wickens Fry to the list and was astonished at the list's presentation and the total lack of interest in it. The 52 accesses a month are no doubt mainly from bots.
I have suggested it should be fully revised. See the talk page. Hope I have your support. We really need to get photography moving again! --Ipigott (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hoary. Please see my complaint [7]. Hope I can participate soon. You are not the only one to have pooh-poohed my WYSIWYG suggestions. I remember making the same comments to Dr. Wang in the early 1980s. It paid dividends then. Why not now?--Ipigott (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'm mystified. I was hazily aware that there was, or was going to be, a WYSIWYG editor option. The notion doesn't thrill me personally (and when I read that it introduces delays I'm thrilled still less), but if decently designed it seems a good idea for many people. So what's not to like?
Apparently, its unavailability for MSIE. Here's what I read about that:
VisualEditor currently works only in the most modern versions of Firefox, Chrome and Safari. A volunteer is working on Opera support, and the developers aim to have support for the latest versions of Internet Explorer once they release VisualEditor more widely.
What's not to like there?
On alternative browsers: The standard browser in the OS that's on all my computers is "Iceweasel" (i.e. Firefox with different artwork), but I've also got Chromium and Opera on all of them, and I've also got rekonq, WINE's MSIE imitation and the inconveniently renamed "Web" on one or two of them. Though I use Iceweasel most of the time. Installing additional browsers might be slightly easier under Linux (thanks to Synaptic) than under Windows, but I thought it was very easy with Windows too. (I do remember the days when installing a new browser under Windows would often lead to the unsolicited rewriting of something or other in the Registry so that the newly installed browser became the default browser, but there were so many complaints about this arrogant and short-sighted practice that these days one is asked whether one wants it to be default.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried it yet? With all the hot air being vented over it, I felt a certain obligation to try. Well, it's sluggish. Putting aside questions about its suitability for people who aren't used to editing, I have trouble imagining that it will appeal to anyone who is used to editing. -- Hoary (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to go through the article. I've done quite a bit of work on it recently as we're trying to get it up to GA standard. Any suggestions or advice you might have in this connection would be very useful. Hope the weather in Tokyo is as good as it has been here in Denmark over the past month or so. I see you have also corrected a number of spellings in favour of British. I have become rather irritated recently in the automatic Americanization practiced by Internet Explorer. It's always a pain in the neck to change the parameters but I suppose I'll have to do something about it.--Ipigott (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you might have guessed, I've been very busy, which has forced me to use the computer, which makes tinkering with WP articles more attractive than doing what I'm supposed to be doing with the computer. Thus my minor reinvolvement. On Aalborg: Take a look at the climate section, which has oddities. Spelling: Do you mean that your copy of IE is configured for US spelling? I don't even understand why somebody who understands that IE is a browser wouldn't use an alternative to IE. (By contrast, there are of course many people who have little or no notion of the distinctions among the internet, the web, IE, and Windows: "I read it on my internet!") -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my IE is indeed configured for US spelling. In fact the automatic spell checker has only recently been introduced for WP editing and I haven't got around to altering it. I have in fact found it quite useful when editing Wikipedia articles in American English. Maybe I should keep IE for American and use Chrome for UK English. If you are more familiar with Chrome than I am, perhaps you can tell me whether it is possible to install two or more versions at once, for say English UK, American English and Danish. This does not seem to be possible with IE. I see that Chrome is now listed as the most popular browser (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp and http://www.sitepoint.com/browser-trends-february-2013/) but I have a feeling that might partly be a result of the mobile market. Thanks for your comments on the climate of Aaborg.--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I never use Chrome and don't know offhand. (I do use Chromium, but only occasionally.) With Firefox you can have British English, US English, Danish and more, and easily switch among them. (Explained here.) ¶ All of this "British" versus "American" spelling stuff here in WP seems silly to me: Plenty of US theatres are called "XYZ Theatre"; the best British dictionary uses "-ize" rather than "-ise". When asked to choose between "British" and "American" spelling for one article (I forget which), I plumped for "Oxford spelling" but was told no: spelling hereabouts must be very obviously British or very obviously US, it seems. (A silly faction of Britons fearing that their identity is under threat, perhaps?) ¶ NB the unreferenced claim, near the very end, that "Aalborg has the most twin cities in Denmark." -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC) PS a small point, but see this and its edit summary. -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest in Aalborg article, but do you think you could dial down the condescending tone of some of your edit summaries. I at least know that you can't source a company claim to its own website/profile but it is a work in progress and any one of us might write something which needs reediting so I'd appreciate that you bear this in mind. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah . . . I'll try. As I look at the article I see that a great amount of work has gone into it and continues to go into it, but it looks dodgy because of a palpable civic boosterism -- and when one looks at the sources for the claims, too often they're just off, in one way or another. Is this (informal) assessment unfair to it? Anyway, if it's on its way to Good Article candidacy, then let the heat treatment come beforehand so that it passes smoothly, is my view. -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your work on it anyway :-]♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would first just like to thank you, Hoary, for devoting so much of your precious time to the Aalborg article. As you know, it's a fairly small town by today's standards and it is not always easy to find third-party links for referencing items worthy of inclusion. I totally agree with what you say about "civic boosterism" but where else can one find what the local authorities have been working on over the past five or ten years or what they intend to do in the future. It may not be the most acceptable Wikipedia approach, but in the absence of other sources, I felt is was better to link to the commune than to avoid any mention of the turn to education, culture, green energy, etc. If, however, you think this is the wrong approach, I would be happy to draw on a few isolated snippets from the local press or simply fall back on the Danish encyclopedias. As you've probably seen, I've tried to find other sources for some of the developments in industry and commerce but even if they now appear "third party", they often draw verbatim on the publications of companies or their takeover owners. Overall though, I think the article is now a substantial improvement on what it was a few weeks ago and seems to me to be far more informative than even the Danish Wikipedia coverage which doesn't seem to have been substantially updated for the last four or five years. As you have been taking such an interest, I would nevertheless appreciate your opinions on how the article could be further improved especially as we are now in the throws of the GA review process. (BTW, I've installed both Firefox and Chrome on this machine and have been experimenting. Unfortunately as I'm relatively new to both of them, I find it difficult to find simple functions like search through the article for a given word or phrase or even open new windows in a different position on the screen. (I'm notoriously bad at following introductions or help functions.) I have nevertheless found how to move from one language to another on Firefox (after downloading the spelling dictionaries of various languages) and that aspect seems to work quite well. At least Firefox does not seem to make unannounced spelling changes like IE. I suppose I'll have to spend more time on finding our how both Firefox and Chrome work on a day-to-day basis and investigate why Chrome is so popular with so many.)--Ipigott (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm glad that my often testy-sounding remarks haven't gone down too badly. (Sometimes when I look at them a day later they seem curiously bitter, whereas they weren't meant that way.) Yes, a lot of the article is derived from what we can call either "official sources" or "PR puff". When this restricts itself to factual statements such as about age or length then I'd suppose (and hope) that it's pretty reliable. The problem is that it does also tend to put a gloss on things; a WP article shouldn't assert that [X] is satisfactory, elegant, unique in Jutland or whatever and then cite the owner/administrator of [X] as an authority for such a claim. Precisely because the article is undergoing a GA check, one shouldn't try to think of additional material that ought to be covered. (I'm too sleepy/lazy to look for this, but I think that GA guidelines advise/instruct the reviewer of an article to call off the review of an article that promises to develop in the short/medium term.) Instead, what's already in the article should be checked. (Once it has its GA status it can then develop further, be stabilized, and be a candidate for FA.) The demand for consistency is a bore, but there it is: as I notice inconsistencies for which the better/best option isn't obvious, I'll mention these on the article's talk page. ¶ One big change in browsers during the last three years or so is that whereas the menu system used to be displayed by default (though you could choose to hide it and thereby liberate more space), now it tends to be more or less hidden by default (although it can always be displayed, if you remember how). In Iceweasel and Chromium under Linux, you get the menu system via Alt-F; I'd expect that it's the same for Firefox and Chrome under Windows. As for searching through a page for a word or string, I think this is Ctrl-F in just about any Windows browser (and Command-F in just about any Mac browser). -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hoary, when you have a few minutes, please have a look at this article. The photographer is really interesting and is notable not only for two significant books, but also as a printer that several known art photographers use for their display prints. But the article is terrible. When I first found it, I assumed its was an autobiographical or fan-written puff piece for a non-notable photog. I still think the article is conflicted (more or less provable by a search of user names for the original author), but Lopes is significant. I plan to work on the article and hope you can contribute too. TheMindsEye (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try. Well actually I was going to work on Kent Klich (or at least do so in breaks from work, which threatens to balloon in the next couple of weeks). How about if I help at the Lopes article from time to time (and no, my "help" wouldn't be limited to adding indignant comments; I just start with those), and you look in at the Klich article from time to time? -- Hoary (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Maude E. Callen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
v=onepage&q&f=false Maude Callen]", ''Tenderly Lift Me: Nurses Honored, Celebrated, and Remembered]'' (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2004).</ref>
Oh noes! -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible imcoming edit war (Clan Gregor) article[edit]
Hi there Horay, some months back you helped with an edit war situation, mainly regarding the Clan Davidson article, which resulted in an IP user (User talk:24.188.32.225) being blocked and banned for vandalism. I fear another similar situation will arise with another Scottish clan article, this time Clan Gregor. If you check the article history, prior to the 28th Septmeber 2013, the article contained absolutley masses of unsourced information. The article had also been tagged since March 2013 as having a lack of sources/inline citations. There were some website sources that no longer worked but I'd say 90% of the article, which was quite large, was unsourced. Bearing in mind that unsourced information can be removed from Wikipeida, I re-wrote much of the article with complete inline/citations. However any existing well sourced information I left alone and did not remove. The article was brought up to a good stnadard with all the information sourced. Since then another IP user, (User talk:98.148.29.143) has come along and reverted the entire article back to its unsourced state - removing all the sourced information - without discussion. Wikipedia rules state that you should discuss before removing sourced information. I do not want to get into an edit war with IP user but at the same time I believe I have edited in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia, as explained, and that the IP user has not. Any help much appreciated. QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see what I wrote here. You're welcome to ask anyone for editorial help. However, here you seem to be asking for administrative help. This may be warranted, and your description of what has happened may be accurate -- but if so, you should think hard about whether it's an administrative matter and, if you then decide that yes indeed it is, then post a message at WP:AN/I, where of course it can be seen by any administrator. (Then it can't later be alleged that you cherry-picked a particular administrator who's a pal of yours.) If you post a message at WP:AN/I, I suggest that you describe the annoying edits uncontroversially, clearly but concisely pointing out three or four of their worst ingredients. Also, don't do a blanket reversion of the IP's edits, however richly deserved this seems: instead, describe the problem so persuasively that somebody else will do the blanket reversion for you. -- Hoary (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing. I note that you refrain above from alleging vandalism. But the combination of this edit and summary alarms me. How can a band be "formed" by one person and "founded" by another? That's not entirely a rhetorical question: there could really be an answer. If there is an answer, then the article should supply it. However, it makes no further mention of the person who "formed" the band. Actually the "former" of the band was added by an IP who I infer from his/her (probably his) edits such as this one would like the world to share what he imagines to be his sense of humor. If you want to avert an edit war successfully or to win it decisively and permanently, you need extreme care. -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hoary, thanks for the copyedit .. you won't believe that but yesterday I showed the image from your user page (that one depicting a woman watching a photo of an older "cowboy" on a photo exhibition) to my wife and told her that it reminds me of old Czechoslovakia and old Forman's films. I told her that I love the contact between her and him ... + the image of wedding in the middle is simply brilliant in the composition ... it promises something ... maybe a new start :) It is so funny, full of humantity and art ... and now I see your name on my watchlist - pure coincidence! Not long ago, I visited the "Retrospective" exhibition of Viktor Kolář[8] in Prague. I started the article about him in 2011, you might be interested, he is one of the best :) Take care, and thanks again. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kolář certainly is one of the best. The reason why I touched up the article on Štreit was that very recently I'd been reading a little about Czech photographers in general, and therefore surfed around en:WP to learn (or remind myself of) more; since I'd previously done a bit of work on the Štreit article I felt some curious personal responsibility for the state of the article. ¶ While reading about Czech photographers and seeing samples of their work, I was amazed by how much wonderful stuff there was from people I'd never heard of (as well of course as by those I had heard of, e.g. Kolář). If space and money permitted, I'd just buy every volume in the series of compact paperbacks from Torst. But of course they don't (and I only have one volume, the one on Cudlín). Right now the photographer (/architect) I'd most like to see more from is Ivo Loos (book). -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good idea, thank you. (If the article were in the Guardian as early as August of the same year, I believe that I could access it via Lexis Nexis; but it wasn't and I can't.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hoary. As you may remember, I have been involved in a "Requested move" in an attempt to change "Luxembourgian" to "Luxembourg" in the titles of articles relating to general elections, etc. See Talk:Luxembourgian general election, 2013. As the discussion has been underway since 21 October with general agreement in favour of the change, I wonder if you could help by closing the discussion. I will then be able to go ahead with the title changes as far as I can, although some of them may require assistance too as they have been moved backwards and forwards. --Ipigott (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I can see you have not taken this one on, I'll try to find someone else to handle it.--Ipigott (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I looked at this request earlier, decided not to act on it, intended to explain this decision, but then promptly forgot all about it.
So, belatedly: Putting aside the persuasiveness of the arguments pro and con, the arguments pro certainly have more people supporting them. However, some opposition is apparent. Somebody who is impartial, and is seen to be impartial, should close this. You'd then almost certainly get your way, and thereafter there'd be no risk of criticism of the procedure.
By contrast, if I took up your request there'd thereafter be a small but real risk of some charge of cronyism.
For a request such as this, it's much better to go to the relevant noticeboard and ask for the help of ... nobody in particular. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Making a comprehensive article subsuming several existing ones[edit]
Hi Hoary! I thought I would ask your advice about strategy. There are a number of articles, all rather stubb(l)y, on various forms of piano ensemble music. As in my note at Talk:Piano_duet, there are two articles on One piano four hands (1P4H), and stubs on 1P6H, 2P4H, 2P8H (mentioned in Piano quartet), and perhaps more. This seems a bit unsatisfactory -- many general remarks apply to all such combinations, and a single article would surely be more worthwhile. What should I do? Just go ahead and create a new article to swallow these all up, or should I look for consensus somewhere? Grateful for ideas, even if just WP:BOLD or whateveritis.
I imagine that just being bold would bring objections, and asking in advance would bring objections. A tricky situation. I'd have thought that each of 2P4H and 1P4H would have enough material for its own article, that the others wouldn't, and that other combinations would have been tried out too (2P2H, for conventional and prepared pianos?).
So you'd need one or two omnibus articles, with links at the top of the 2P4H and 1P4H sections to fuller treatment in separate articles on each.
What concept(s)/title(s) were you thinking of, for the new article(s)? -- Hoary (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since it appears to be a proper name, I was about to move it to the correct capitalization Active Resistance to Metrication but noticed that you had previously merged the target article to Anthony Bennett (politician), following a discusssion at Talk:Anthony Bennett (politician)#Merger proposal. So I thought I had better consult you before reinforcing a de facto revert of your merge. Since the target article already exists, I presume a move would require admin privileges, anyway, but I tend to agree with the previous consensus of redirecting to Anthony Bennett (politician). --Boson (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. As I look at the re-created article, I see no reason why it should not be turned back into a mere redirect to the article on its founder, as I explain here in the talk page about the article on him. You're most welcome to agree or disagree with me there. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hoary. You have new messages at LFaraone's talk page. Message added 14:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Notification of automated file description generation[edit]
Your upload of File:Anythingisbetterthanthis.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
![[3]](http://nn.by/image-cache/dcd42ba73f85adda1b7281eb9e981a3c_w300_h352_q95.jpg){kind=link}
Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted or removed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. The key point to remember is that even if it seems obvious to you, if a user has not made their real-life information known on Wikipedia it is a violation of the outing policy to try and make those connections here yourself. This policy protects that user, you, me, and every other user who uses a pseudonym to edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Maude E. Callen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
