User talk:TheMindsEye

Hi! I think that the article of the well known German Artist Dan Pero Manescu has the right and enough verifed external sources, but if you think that this article it's not enough neutral please be free to make your self some modifications. I'd ruther like to inform that with this Wikipedia article or without this article Dan Pero Manescu remains Dan Pero Manescu. Best, Q-ART — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q-ART (talk • contribs) 09:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was a typo thanks for pointing it out Jim Sweeney (talk)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:204.100.183.137&redirect=no The IP in question belongs to the murrieta valley unified school district, any message left on that talk page will far more than likely fail reach the intended vandal. 204.100.183.137

Hi! I saw your interested in articles about photography. Maybe you can help me, I´m working on a translation of a swedish article about a photographer, and have asked for help with translation at the photography portal: photography. But noone anwered yet. I would much appreciate some help. Thank you, --Godfellow (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eye. Work on Chris Steele-Perkins and Nikos Economopoulos has taken me to the predictably wretched article on Magnum Photos. Most of this is taken up by a table of its members. Some time ago you very reasonably criticized that in its talk page; but actually I think it is, or could be, a good idea.

Almost all of the information or misinformation in the table was unsourced. A lot disagreed with what's in the chronology in the back of Magnum Photos (a little paperback published by Thames & Hudson), so I changed it, down to 1978 or so.

Trouble is, the little paperback also disagrees with Magnum's own website, which sometimes agreed instead with the unsourced material I was "correcting".

At least part of the problem seems to be of what "membership" or "joining" means.

These days, you first become a "Nominee". You later either become an "Associate" (or "Associate Member", I'm not sure) or disappear from Magnum. After you've been an A (or AM) for some time either you become a Member (or conceivably Full Member) or you don't. But there are also Contributors and there have been Correspondents too. And least one person (Eugene Richards) has left and rejoined (Richards thereafter left a second time).

Anyway, I'm now no longer taking what I read as "member" or "Member" to mean [full] "Member", unless the context clearly puts it in contradistinction to "Associate" (or "Associate Member"). I'm taking "years active" to start with Nominee status, where I can find when that started. So I'm now revising my revisions accordingly. I've done A; there are B through Z to go. Of course if you'd like to start at Z and work backwards to meet me in the middle....

I'm not happy with the listing of mere Nominees. If Magnum wants to give them prominence equal to that of its Associates and Contributors, fine; but WP is not Magnum. Since nobody has objected, I'm now removing the names of no-longer Nominees. If there's no objection I'll soon remove those of current Nominees too.

Investigating Magnum is an eye-opener. There are two or three (full) Members whose work is a complete blank to me; they just seem vaguely trendy and boring. (To avoid hurting anyone's feelings, I'll refrain from naming them.) There are also people I'd never heard of whose work is superb. This activity has its dangers: I find somebody who's good and then want to buy their books. Luckily the books are usually a lot smaller and lighter than Erwitt's Personal Best (recommended!), but sometimes they're about as expensive. -- Hoary (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC) .. reworded Hoary (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This all sounds reasonable. I agree with not listing the nominees. Perhaps the notes could be a little fuller. The redlinks jump out a bit too much, what do you think about taking out the Wikilinks until they get an article? I'll try to kick in at Z, but it might be a day before I can get started. TheMindsEye (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to retain the redlinks. After all, there aren't that many of them, and the number won't increase all that much. If we don't retain them, then others are likely to add them (whether as red or newly blue), and we'll feel obliged to reinvestigate, explain to the editor, etc etc -- it all sounds like additional work.

If by "notes" you mean what's on the right of the table, I wonder. I think that's what the individual articles should do. On the other hand I'd agree if somebody criticized the table for failing to provide any reason why they should click on the bluelink of anybody within whose name they didn't already know. What kind of material would you like to add?

Once you start clicking on the links in footnotes I've added you're likely to be very surprised. The great majority will appear to be to the same page, one that's not about the individual photographer but instead is an introductory page. However, thanks (I presume) to Javascript hocus-pocus, if you click on the name of any photographer listed on the right half of that page the left half switches to a very short introduction to that photographer. This is the part that I meant. (Perhaps the footnotes should be reworded.)

Each of these intros has a link to "Portfolio". The top portfolio page says almost nothing; but, as I've only realized within the last couple of hours, it does often give information about membership. It also has a link to a more detailed biography page; most or all of these biographies skip the matter of membership.

Once we've gone through the Magnum website, I'll look again through the chronology of the little T&H book for details on photographers who left and who go unmentioned on the website. -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new twist: Magnum's website is down. -- Hoary (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor sources a claim that a photographer was/is a member of Magnum and simultaneously questions his notability.

Holy fuck. What is this -- "You don't have to be a 'special' person to edit Wikipedia, but it helps"? -- Hoary (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you might weigh in here [1], seems like a new editor somewhat overwrought at the notion that photography might be considered as art. Sorry to disturb you but I grow weary of these encounters, thanks...Modernist (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I'll watch and weigh in when appropriate. TheMindsEye (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I am a mentor for User:John N. Cohen, an editor with keen personal interest in light painting whose external links you have reverted several times. He means well, but he doesn't understand why this was done. I don't understand as well as you, so could you please explain your reasoning on the light painting talk page? I'll direct him there as well. Thanks so much and happy editing. - Draeco (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I'll leave an answer on the article's talk page. TheMindsEye (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your edits to the Austin, Texas page, especially the removal of several poor quality photos. What we really need are a whole heck of a lot more citations. Anyway, I reverted on of your edits re the Texas Tribune, and wanted to tell you why. First, after reverting I went back and reduced the paragraph by at least half (with multiple citations). You were right, it was too long. Second,this is a fundmental new form of journalism that has really caught fire in Austin and Texas with more than a million page views in it's first 6 months. Third, I will eventually add the names and info on several other political publications for balance, but the Texas Tribune is now the "Go TO" source for virtually everyone in Texas and Austin politics. Dmartinaus • Talk 22:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I put up the photo because it, like the nightview of the Austin cityscape, resonates the wonderful and unique beauty of Austin. As we Austinites know, there is a hiking trail which allows you access to a great view of the bridge. The photo has been up for some time now and was utilized by the City of Austin at www.biggigaustin.net to promote Austin. I was surprised to see that someone had taken the photo down and replaced it with a daytime photo. I hope that both photos have a place on the Austin, Texas page. Thanks for your hard work. User:utexastom —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

As I've suggested, something here smells of a PR exercise. More disinterested eyeballs would be appreciated. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TheMindsEye, you recently reverted some external links added by User:VRphotographer to Panoramic photography. S/he has since re-reverted them, and I have removed them again and added a warning to his/her talk page. Checking the user's history, I note that s/he added the book-promotion link to Panoscan, Quicktime VR and VR Photography. We might need to keep an eye on his/her activities and report if necessary. Thanks for reverting; I'll re-revert if the links are re-added. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assist. TheMindsEye (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your input here, please! -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fun! -- Hoary (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you for your comments about why my external links to published or audio interviews with photographers (ie on the Terry O'Neill page) were removed. Can you explain a little bit more, please? I can't see the difference to a link to an interview or profile in Professional Photographer magazine (removed) to, say, an interview in the Guardian or The Tate website, which is why i decided to add them. I have aslo put this query on the article's talk page so I hope I'm doing the right thing. Many thanks for your time. ProPho (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• According to WP:ELNO, the difference is that an interview may contain information beyond what a fully developed Wiki article might contain, while the profiles on your site where not more illuminating than a fully developed article would have. I agree that the talk pages of the individual articles is the best place to discuss this concern. TheMindsEye (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eye. I disagree with your last edit on Manuel Rivera-Ortiz and reverted it. The ZoneZero article is about "Documentary Art" (see title) and refers to exhibitions "in spaces destined to art" where works resulting from a documentary task are praised, and not to general photographic exhibitions. Your last revision omitted this important aspect. -- ConcernedPhotographer (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On this: uh, if the article on Klein doesn't show that he was a street photographer, then this is not because he wasn't one but instead because -- no offence to its authors -- the article's seriously defective. (Yes, the business about being a "father" of SP is pretty silly, but then again the people who like this notion are capable of coming up with grandmothers of SP and great-grandfathers of SP, so I suppose that this tired metaphor can have some sense to it.)

I'm not the perp of the new SP category and only noticed it when it popped up in some article that was on my watchlist. I then whizzed through Category:Japanese photographers, adding it to a number of them. While doing this, I was most surprised to notice that Toyoko Tokiwa had sprung an illustration. Tidying that up led to further developments to the article, and incidentally to a merry argument on biographical infoboxes in Nihonjoe's talk page and mine that then developed into a discussion at Talk:Toyoko Tokiwa that may interest you. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I agree, your points are always well taken. My problem is when I see these cats pop up on articles that don't even mention the subject of the cat. If the subject is notable enough to warrant inclusion in a cat, then the article should support that point. Conversely, if the editors of an article didn't find the subject's work in a cat's field, then it shouldn't be significant enough to warrant inclusion. TheMindsEye (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to hear why you reduced the lead image in the Kristen Feilberg article to a standard thumb. The reason I presented a larger image was (a) that as the article is about photography, the image is especially important and (b) the quality of the image has recently been enhanced making it possible to show a larger version without distortion. - Ipigott (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Image size is really dependent on the settings each reader sets in the preference box. So what look right on your screen, may look wrong on mine. By not proscribing the size, but using the 'thumb' option, the images look the way the reader wants. This is discussed in the Image Use Policy, which you can read at: WP:IMGSIZE. TheMindsEye (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanations, TheMindsEye. I agree with you that in general a standard thumb is a good way to define image settings. There are, nevertheless, exceptions which deserve special treatment, especially in the area of art (including painting, sculpture and artistic photography) where the image is an extremely important part of the article. Like many other seasoned Wikipedians working in this area, I firmly believe it is useful to define larger image sizes in certain cases so that the reader can immediately appreciate the detail without having to bother about standard settings or clicking on the image to enlarge it. You can find thousands of examples but just take a look at Art of the United Kingdom. I think you will agree that if all the images in this article were reduced to standard thumbs, most readers would have a less vivid impression of the article's content. Some other examples in photography are Deloss Barnum, Philip Henry Delamotte and Giorgio Sommer. And as for general guidance, in the WP Manual of Style, you will see that there is provision in the image section for resizing images where appropriate. I will therefore resize the image to 300px which is perfectly acceptable for a lead image. If you still disagree, perhaps you would like to start a discussion on the article's talk page where others will also be able to participate. Thanks for you interest in this article. - Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was wondering if you could help me out with the Turk Pipkin reference I added for the bestseller citation. You've been very helpful thanks! Andrerevilla (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it looks like someone else beat me to it. TheMindsEye (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove it vs. trying to improve it? Please put it back. ThanksManicalCritic (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because of the reasons stated in the edit summary: it was unnecessary, poorly documented, and seemed to exist only to promote a specific site. TheMindsEye (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the article. I would appreciate the same from you before you summarily delete it. No one has addressed the issues of new emerging technology. As a new user I felt you vandalized it!! ThanksManicalCritic (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, my edits were to improve the readability of the article and to remove your promotion of your site that you have repeatedly tried to insert in this article. As you did nothing to improve the material, but simply reinserted it, and because this topic is already discussed in the article I have no choice but to remove the section. TheMindsEye (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you beleive someone is promoting a site or service over others, you have assumed the worst!! And your position is biased. No where in the entire article is this new technology reflected or documented visuallyItalic text. Improving should not = deletingManicalCritic (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree. My view that your edits serve mainly to promote the Palo Alto Free Press is based on a review of your edits. I also don't find your unsourced edits to be credible - specifically this one: "One of the first to use this new news reporting technology is currently in use in the field by Palo Alto Free Press located in Palo Alto, California, USA whose focus is primarily on Citizen Journalism." As to the redundant nature of your inserted edit, please read the second paragraph of the article where you will find this concept discussed in adequate detail. TheMindsEye (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets revisit your original comments: "I removed it because of the reasons stated in the edit summary: it was unnecessary, poorly documented, and seemed to exist only to promote a specific site."

1. Unnecessary. I now understand your logic finally. However, you still refuse to recognize the technology beyond cellphones and the enabling softwere i.e Qik with the ability to transmit live videos for the purpose of creating this new technology heading. I set out to through a series of emails to verify if Palo Alto Free Press was in fact one, "One of the first to use this new news reporting technology". These emails are available.

2. Poorly documented. You never once addressed what was poorly documented. Again, as a new user you've done nothing more than to destroy someone's work by labeling it as "solicitation" or otherwise. Not once did you point to anything poorly documented.

3. Promote a specific site. My intent was not to promote Palo Alto Free Press as you allege. Your reasons for deleting this newly proposed heading in my opinion was a ruse to masks your own prejudices.

You took this benign and innocuous innocent posting and turned into something it was not intended to be or do (Sir) trough your biased assumptions and admissions. What I was attempting to do was to become creative and wikibold and you made a mockery of it.ManicalCritic (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ManicalCritic, you miss the point. Its unnecessary because the point was already made in the article - see the second paragraph. It was poorly documented because the provided documentation didn't support the statement (also, emails are not verifiable documentation and usually can't be cited). It, and other edits by you (that were fixed by other editors) did serve to promote the Palo Alto Free Press. I choose to ignore your baiting statements alleging bias and prejudice on my part. TheMindsEye (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. M D Potter. Any comments? 20:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. TheMindsEye (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were far too restrained. (Well, perhaps you were busy or tired.) Lovely stuff. Consider:

Hodges’ works have gained international recognition, and can be found in both private and public collections worldwide, including; [[Davis Polk & Wardwell]],<ref>{{cite web|author=Art2Bank Editorial |url=http://www.art2vu.co.uk/patronage_and_investment/dddddddddddd.php |title=Thomas Hodges' commission commemorating law firm Davis Polk's first HQ in Paris - Art2Bank: The Art of Patronage and Investment |publisher=Art2vu.co.uk |date=2008-01-27 |accessdate=2011-08-05}}</ref> Sony Corporation, [[Universal Corporation]], [[Shanghai University]], [[Chi Mei Museum]] and [[The British Museum]] of Erotic Art.<ref>http://www.britishmuseumoferoticart.com/thomashodgeserot.html</ref>

Respectively: Sourced, unsourced, unsourced, unsourced, unsourced, misleadingly written and "sourced" to a dead link. Ha ha. -- Hoary (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeebus, the longer I look at this, the more rotten it seems. The latest: he's credited with two books, Imaginism and (with a writer) something untitled. Neither Amazon.com nor Worldcat.org has heard of the former. His own blog (e.g. here, NB "NSFW") doesn't seem to mention it either, though it does go on about the porn photonovel. But I've already spent long enough on this for one day. Time for a break. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was restrained as I was a bit too busy to give the article my full attention - it does smell bad and I will look again at it. Thanks, Hoary TheMindsEye (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated above "he's credited with two books". This is inaccurate, the article states "Hodges has numerous book publications, in various stages of production". The books referenced are pending publication (as stated), which explains why both Amazon and Worldcat have no reference (they will have post-publication). We also note other ambiguous comments, and whilst we are not experienced editors of Wikipedia, wonder if the statement "Jeebus, the longer I look at this, the more rotten it seems", is an appropriate comment to make, as many of the changes made to the article give the impression of bias. Expoarts (talk)

Please read WP:CRYSTAL - this is a long held principle that Wiki doesn't reference future events unless its verifiable. Under this principle, a planned publication is not relevant unless its verifiable. TheMindsEye (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And another one. Actually this one is blatant, with the autobiographer's declarations of a desire to be better known and sell some prints. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that one too and it totally looks like an autobiography. TheMindsEye (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looked sad. I'd imagine that most photographers whose names aren't Gursky or Parr would like their work to be better known and to sell in a larger quantity and at higher prices, but to say seriously (without any hint that you're some kind of punk photographer, attempting to shock your interviewer with let's-cut-the-bullshit candor) that this is your main ambition . . . oh dear. These days when I see a bio that looks fishy and that has images, I look at the copyright claims made for the images, the username of the uploader, and the username of the writer of the article. My time and energy permitting, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh FFS. ¶ Quite irrelevantly, could I perhaps interest you in Yuri Kozyrev? A fine photographer with a crap article. I'd like to improve it but I'm busy and tired. I'd happily do it together with another capable editor though. -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look at it now. TheMindsEye (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Sir! I've done a little more. -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Mr. Hodges. We are not experienced at editing Wikipedia, nor did we or Mr. Hodges post the original article. We are a representing gallery of Hodges who also curates for us. We simply wished to add some required links, as was requested in the Orphan tag, which we have done. We note that the comments above relating to book publications are inaccurate, as are some of the changes made. We will source a competent Wikipedia editor to address these issues Expoarts (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Could you take a quick look at this revived discussion about merging Photography and History of photography, and okay it, suggest refinements to it, or [gulp!] reject it? I think that one other editor and I agree on what to do, so it's not as if there's a blazing need for a third opinion ... but it seems odd for just two people to dispose of a WikiProject, and more importantly you may well bring some new idea that would benefit this encyclopedia in the making. -- Hoary (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

about your photo on your user page is the famous quip someone made that Louis Agassiz was "better in the abstract than in the concrete." But I really came here to comment on your removal of the phrase "(who would later invent the mobile blood unit) " from Tina Modotti, a sentence that I probably added years ago. I am one of those wikipedians who, when presented with such an understandably correct edit will go back to my books and try and show that Moditti was with the good Dr. (Bethune, not Agassez) when he made his world changing discovery. Of course that might have happened in China, but we'll see. Einar Carptrash (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points and thanks for the quote, Carptrash. I tend to take out comments that are unrelated to an article's subject, especially when the comment refers to information that would be in a linked Wiki article. My thought is that if someone wanted to know more about that subject, they could just click on the link. But, if Modotti did have a role in inventing the mobile blood unit, then the info would be entirely appropriate to leave in her article. TheMindsEye (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came over here to see if you have any clue as to why Karl Blossfeldt‎ gets vandalized so often (thanks for cleaning up, again) and discovered that we already had a conversation going. So.. Modotti did not have a hand in inventing the mobile blood bank but could well have been there when it was invented. Since she served with Dr. Bethune under an assumed name it is difficult to pin down. I did just get a new book about Modotti's photographs with an into by Vittorio Vidali, who, in some versions of the story, was responsible for killing her. It will be interesting to read what he has to offer. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but what you say is very ignorant. any photographer they work with light knows, that i'm the creator and developer of Light Art Performance Photography. wikipedia Germany say this too: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Art_Performance_Photography daily mail said the same:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1210538/Pictured-The-incredible-light-graffiti-created-host-light-sources-shine-straight-camera-lens.html

canon say this too: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/interviews/light_art_performance_photography.do

with google you find 147.000 results with LAPP and my name.

what do you want? wikipedia take my technique but don't want to tell who is the spiritual father of this art?

you say: rmv unrefed, spam promotional section???? I don't post a link to my creator-homepage, posted not my book or many other things. i write only that i'm the creator of LAPP and that i'm! JanLeonardo (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK then if there is that much documentation, get an independent editor to write the section and include documentation. The edit I saw was not documented. TheMindsEye (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what image would be a good representation of the Texas Book Festival? Nv8200p talk 23:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my comment that your deletion of a reference to the article on Manuel Rivera-Ortiz might have been an act of vandalism. References are added to back up the content of an article. The reference which I added is an article by the editorial staff of the renowned French photography magazine Photographie.com about winners or finalists of various prices made known during the official program of Rencontres d'Arles, the word's most important photography festival. The referred article states that the twelve finalists of the Manuel Rivera-Ortiz grant for 2012 were disclosed during the Rencontres D'Arles program. (Le jeune Prix de la Fondation Manuel Rivera-Ortiz a choisi d'annoncer à Arles la liste des douze finalistes de sa seconde édition. Le prix vise à permettre la réalisation ou la finalisation d'un projet dans le domaine de la photographie documentaire sociale. Le photographe danois Mads Nissen est le lauréat de la première édition du prix.) The reference clearly contains additional information and does not make the article bulkier or too bulky (since the added information is in the form of a simple reference). 92.150.73.15 (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:Good Faith and learn its principles. My edit was clearly explained and your accusation is out of place. TheMindsEye (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that per Talk:Bob Gruen, material from bobgruen.com is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL. Would it be possible to clean up the language added by the anonymous contributor instead of wholly removing it? Trying to contribute material has been very frustrating for everyone involved on this ticket. Thanks, — madman 22:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you'd like to try to clean it up. My thought is that the language was so clearly promotional in nature that cleaning it up would be too time-consuming. My preference is to spend time improving the more neutral, current version of the article. TheMindsEye (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that Richards signed the 1993 Texas Penal Code, including Section 21.06-making gay people criminals. I have provided the External Link to the Texas Penal Code, Section 21, regarding sexual offenses. There was no way to cite the penal code without disrupting the numbered footnotes, so I put it in the External Links. The facts must be unvarnished and the bad truths of her career presented along with the more positive facts. Richards made a political decision that betrayed the gay & lesbian voters. That is no more disputable than the fact that 1993's Don't Ask Don't Tell law was signed by President Clinton.

As the editor, is it true that your role is not to censor, but to advise as an editor? I noticed no one has bothered to offer citations to the claims of economic revitalization, gun control, etc, although the citations were requested in 10/2009, almost 3 years ago. I think you must now consider whether these old unsupported claims under her "Governorship" section can remain in light of the fact that you removed my factually-supported offering within hours of its posting. As a gay man who lived under the threat of Section 21.06, and dealt with a state agency boss who called me and others "fag" to our faces in meetings, I expect Wikipedia, which you represent, to deal with facts, not cover up the ugly truths about any politician. By the way, Richards had promised to enact an employment non-discrimination act (ENDA) law for state employees. She failed to do that either. You may not know these things because you are probably not gay or as concerned about making sure young gay kids know their history, but this is more important than you may realize. Thanks for listening. Section21.06 (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that this card explains
a lot of the hitherto misunderstood
and even ignored origins of a variety of Christmas stories.
I am considering writing an article about the theology involved
but am having a difficult time with sources.
Oh well,
have a good one, it does appear
that we have made it through the worst of 2012,
which is a great start to 2013
Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your name pops up within this thread at WP/AN. You may wish to comment there. -- Hoary (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:AlfredYaghobzadeh.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheMindsEye. I think our paths have crossed before on photography. I fully understand your interest in this article and appreciate your efforts to bring it in line with Wikipedian practice. However, we are dealing here with a complete newcomer who has had absolutely no previous experience of WP editing but has tried to make a valid contribution to a biography which certainly deserves more attention. In addition to suggestions on his user page, I have been trying to guide him along by email. Despite a number of improvements he has made along the right lines, he has now been seriously upset by the edits you and to a lesser extent Hoary have made today. He has now informed me that he would prefer to delete his additions - which of course he is fully entitled to do - as the account in the article no longer coincides with reality. I hope however I can get him to stick around.

Before we get into a full edit war, frightening him off Wikipedia once and for all, I would urge you to show a little patience. I am slowly guiding him down the road and will try to keep him interested. He has a great deal more to contribute once he learns the rules of the game. I'm sure we can sort things out. What he needs is a little time. --Ipigott (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I would let you know that our newbie has decided to leave Wikipedia. He simply found the ground rules too difficult to apply and felt they upset the material he wanted to add to the biography. He has however provided quite a bit of background and a number of useful references. Please feel free to edit the article further if you wish.--Ipigott (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Irving Penn 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:

• [[The Art Institute of Chicago]] holds the Irving Penn Paper and Photographic Archives], which were donated to the Ryerson and Burnham Libraries and the Department of Photography in 1995.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

things? -- Hoary (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]