Open main menu

User talk:Lopifalko


Your warning on photographer Bill Dane's pageEdit

Hi there! I feel it's a bit unfair that you left that warning there considering on many of the photographer-related pages you've made, there are less sources for comparable lists (solo exhibitions, publications, etc.) and there are no source/citation warnings. Is there a reason that Bill's artist bio page, which lists those collections, on Jack Fischer Gallery's site (which is incidentally right down the hall from Fraenkel) doesn't fill in the source gaps while I get more sources together? I thought you'd be pleased that within an hour or two of your initial warning I had over half the Collections sourced directly! :) Let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:300:8A90:F535:A18E:898:B681 (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I was pleased! I even went to the edit summary so as to send thanks using the button there, but found you were an anonymous IP so was unable to. I left the warning in so as to leave encouragement for you to continue, not expecting that doing so would be an issue for you. In time I would have toned it down if no-one, including myself, had headed it.
The subject of the article or their representative are not a WP:RELIABLE source for lists of collections. A reliable source would be the institution themselves, or preferably a disinterested source such as a broadsheet newspaper.
I often completely remove unsourced group exhibitions where I find them in existing articles, but leave in unsourced solo exhibitions to give people the chance to source them. As far as I recall, only very occasionally in articles I have started do I leave an unsourced solo exhibition, but hopefully always include a citation needed warning. Publications do not need sources; I only ever add one if I have a particularly good source and nowhere else to use it in the article.
Thanks for your extensive referencing. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on the page! I was sad at first because of the warning and I'd worked so hard on that page initially (I'm NOT Bill Dane by the way, just a person with an interest in Bill's art and interesting career). But now the page is clearly stronger because of your encouragement/edits. I really appreciate it! It's lovely to have folks like you making so many wikipedia pages for photographers and photography-related folks, and I'm glad you're looking out for Bill Dane's page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:300:8A90:F535:A18E:898:B681 (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, that's kind of you to say, and it pleases me that I inspired you to greater things. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussionEdit

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Now, remain motionless as my assistant here administers the truth serum, mwahaha. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

UK Social Centre NetworkEdit

Thanks for the fixes on UK Social Centre Network, I'm just about to add refs if you give me 30 minutes. : -) Jonpatterns (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for jumping the gun. -Lopifalko (talk)

Sebastião SalgadoEdit

Dear Lopifalko, if there is no need for pictures of two exhibitions (different locations) of Sebastião Salgado, why did you prefer the one with a clearly worse picture quality (please compare the letters of the title of the exhibition in 100% views in terms of image noise and sharpness)? The readability of the author's name and the name of the exhibition is complete in my shot. Membeth (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I prefer the photograph that alredy accompanied the article because I believe the important thing to show about a photograph from an exhibition is the context of the exhibition - lots of photographs - which this photo does well, where as your photo only shows one exhibit. I think this is more important than the author's name and the name of the exhibition. I see your point that your photo is of higher quality at 100% but I expect most people who are reading the photograph will do so from within the article, it is not one that warrants looking at any larger in my opinion. I think photos of exhibitions add only slight value to an article, compared with photos of the subject of the article or their work, thus not worth having more than one photo unless they are of very different exhibitions. -Lopifalko (talk)

My Draft ArticlesEdit

Hello Dear Lopifalko, thank you very much for your latest edits. Could you please not to edit my Draft articles, which are not yet published? Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. I made the edit in the hope that it would be seen as a friendly gesture to show you how lists on Wikipedia should be in chronological order, as I see you have made this same mistake across various articles. -Lopifalko (talk)
Thank you very much for the help. I've asked because I sometimes have draft articles opened in edit mode for some hours and I don't want to mess with overlapping edits. I will really appreciate your guidance and assistance in the future. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is Nowa removing wikilinks?Edit

Just doing an experiment. No offense intended. I can explain in more detail if you want.--Nowa (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Please do explain, or link me to an explanation, but only if you can spare the time. Lopifalko (talk)
Lopifalko, Thanks. It's no big mystery. I wanted to see how other editors would react if an artist's bio was tagged with “orphan”. My main interest was with the David Horvitz article.--Nowa (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you know?Edit

Did you know that Henri Cartier-Bresson was considered to be the father of photojournalism?

No, I didn't either.

But did you know that Wikipedia said this for over one decade?

Jeez. -- Hoary (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You finally proved it once and for all – Wikipedia's full of shit. Fuck Linus's Law. -Lopifalko (talk)

I'd not heard of that, and so took a look.

The law states that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"; or more formally: "Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone."

The amazing/depressing thing is that this conspicuously situated and idiotic claim of having fathered photojournalism survived multiple edits to the article by, and thus eyeballing by, such not-total-photography-ignoramuses as, er, Pinkville, TheMindsEye, you and me (two of whom have since their shots at it pretty much disappeared). But the "law" assumes that the eyeballs aren't glazed. And of course they are, and no wonder they are (or that we just give up), what with all the junk that we see (today's rediscovery: Filip Naudts). -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hoary, nearly 3 years later I am pulling crap out of the Naudts article and chasing down inappropriate links back to it, and find this page shows up as one of those links. It was as much junk as you hinted at. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Edits done by Lopifalko to Glen E. FriedmanEdit

Thank you for trying to help on this page, but it's disappointing that sources such as the Washington Post and others credited as not being valid in your estimation are not worthy of a wiki entry.

Hi. I consider to likely not be a reliable source in Wikipedia's consideration, because it looks to be the work of a single person, and does not have a Wikipedia article about it. The Washington Post ref did not give a URL. I don't consider, a gallery hosting his work, to give an objective opinion on him being one of the greatest photographers of his generation. I have instead been replacing these weak references with new reliable references, so far The Guardian and Dazed.
Thumped is a publication with many writers from around the world i was able to find in a quick google search. Also searched " … and and came up with many sources that concur with the statement that show wiki readers who may not know, the artists' significance, BBC, Washington Post, Dazed and Confused, among galleries, book guides, sellers, as well as print and on line publications agree by publishing the same information, and respectful recognition of his place among the generation.

There was also a lot of other important and well sourced information you removed from the post including but not limited to Friedman's association and credits in the film Dogtown and Z-Boys the award winning movie of which he was very influential in.

The article said "Friedman's film credit, co-producer and creative consultant, barely touch on the major influence he had on the feature-length documentary" which is not an encyclopaedic description. I intend to list films under their own section.
Look forward to seeing this section, thank you. perhaps look at the film credits on the actual movie posters themselves since iMdb is not always complete

Also removing the educational institutions and museum collections that have his work for people to examine in person for educational purposes, why would you delete this information from a source that is supposed to inform?

I retained those public collections for which there is a reference, and removed those for which there was not, as is Wikipedia policy. If references can be found for those collections then they can return.
i think that is a disservice to the education of those looking to wiki for information, they were listed on the artists website I believe, and one would believe institutions have them in there collections for students and others to examine, again i will look for on-line sources to list or perhaps send them to you, and although you say the artists website ideally is not where you'd like to get information from it really is a great source there to be used, wikipedia contributors should. Would you not source information from the artists books in regard to his art or career?

Is there a reason you don't think the artists website is not a reliable source of information?

Ideally the article should be sourced to reliable and independent sources.
Ideally, understood, but it'd be silly not to rely on it for good information unless it has been proven unreliable. For example you listed or someone recently listed only one exhibition, if you go to the artists website you can see the flyers for many many other shows and then perhaps source articles for reviews etc.
Another thing to consider is that there was and is information that is in PRINT that was not available on-line when written so using the artists website of old printed press articles may come in handy for research (which may not be found on line other places).

This artist is well established and exhibited throughout the world and sold tens of thousands of books independently and through major publishing houses. This article as it stood before you hacked away at it was very legitimate your lack of research to validate your edits were uninformed and seemed like you have some personal beef with this artists work or political beliefs perhaps. Please go back and look more closely and reverse your extreme hatchet job to this article that prior was very informative and easy to read. That said I can agree with you on removing some of the more ambiguous terms and happy you've done that. I can try contacting the various institutions about there collections to see if they have them also listed on line some where to link to, but most older institutions do not in my experience. Thanks for your help if you mean well, but please put back the interesting, descriptive and informative information, don't delete work that was submitted on Wikipedia because of your personal lack of basic knowledge of the artist.

I do not need to know anything about the artist, I am applying Wikipedia policy. I am in the process of bringing the article in line with Wikipedia policy, encyclopaedic tone, stripping away the awful mess it was in and building it back up into a decent article that is well supported by reliable references, objective, and more thorough than when I began.
I beg to differ, if you are editing a piece on any subject you should know something about the subject to do it accurately. Sure you can work on information that is ambiguous and clean up grammar, but to remove descriptions of the atist or the work that help explain to the reader what the artist does or is known for doing, or sourced opinions of the artist makes little sense.

Reminds me of how I first became familiar with the artists work, in an article from an Irish group of designers that had Friedman lecture in new york city, they did a splendid article on him and his work that I refund for you here: so perhaps you may like to repost their lovely quote about Friedman.

Apologies in advance if this is not the correct place to put this note, i am new to wiki editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Search&dastroy (talkcontribs) 14:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite. First rule of Wikipedia is assume good faith. I'm not new to this, I've written 48 Wikipedia articles. -Lopifalko (talk)
I am not new to reading wikipedia, i love it and contribute money to it every year, and we both know there are mostly great entries and some very poor entries, so i have to beg to differ with your opinion on this one, as a person who appreciates the artist and work I believe it was a very good entry, and I do believe your edits for the most part were a disservice to the community.
I will say the "list of Publications with significant contributions by Friedman" seems a bit outdated and can use a re-fresh if not an entire overhaul or removal even, what do you think? I love the movie section idea and perhaps You can create a gallery of his work some how? I believe on his website he has an entire section dedicated to free use images. here:

Search&dastroy (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Lopifalko, In efforts to not edit your your edits yet again, can you please consider the following:

If you read the opening lines of the edit you have made it shows little evidence of the artist place in the culture at large, where the quotes if you read the articles supplied (and even 100's more written in the past, some too old to be on-line, which is a travesty for you not to respect just because they were written before the internet publishing of articles was common place) is clearly given.

You should add back in either "One of the most important photographers of his generation", "The most important photographer of his generation" or something to this effect that has been cited and republished in many places including major publication and broadcast networks internationally.

It clarifies what separates him from any other photographer that perhaps also photographed the same bands or skateboarders. As well, clarifying the amount of time he has done these things in the introductory paragraphs again accentuates the importance of this very entry. Merely saying he's been published and has photographs on record covers does not quantify the greatness of the career that is there and clearly on record. Generally speaking these entries are not for mediocre artists, these are to be for artist of great note, so I believe after you've done further research as I have you may reconsider your edits to put these points back in. Other than his induction into the "Skateboarding Hall of Fame" the article that you have trimmed down does not adequately describe the importance of the artists career and work. You have removed too much of this information and I or someone else will eventually add it back, cited as it was if you don't care to do it yourself.

Shooting record covers for groups such as Minot Threat, Black Flag, as well as Public Enemy, Beastie Boys and RunDMC is an incredibly unique achievement, shooting these very popular groundbreaking revolutionary groups in the different genres, and the beginnings of modern day skateboarding culture so uniquely, clearly spoken about in all the many many articles written about Friedman again is a disservice to the people seeking information from Wikipedia about him. The fact that Friedman generally known as a photographer also produced the largest selling hardcore punk album of the 80's seems like something you would not want to leave out of the entry. It may sound promotional but it's a fact that is respected and discussed in the press often that revalidates the importance of the entry.

Above is provided many recent items of press for you to adequately describe the artist, his work, and clear significance that you obviously did not understand before you went in and did what you did. Lets show the importance of the work, not merely that it was done, many reputable RECENT and ON-LINE sources above explain it quite clearly and coincide with what was removed or doubted by you.

I am clearly just trying to improve this page as a great source of information on an artist i respect. I own an actual encyclopedia since i was a kid, it has great information, and it's not just dry facts, its factual information that also shows the importance of the subject and reason for the subjects inclusion in such a collection, I expect nothing less from this great source.

Thank you for your reconsideration. Search&dastroy (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Talk page stalker here. I read:::You should add back in either "One of the most important photographers of his generation", "The most important photographer of his generation" or something to this effect that has been cited and republished in many places including major publication and broadcast networks internationally.
If this claim is made by a respected writer or in a respected periodical, it can be recycled here; otherwise I'd skip it. After all, this is the kind of assertion that frothy periodicals (perhaps recycling promotional press releases) freely make about various people. I note that Friedman was born in 1962. That's the same year as, say, Gregory Crewdson and Guy Tillim. In order to be taken seriously, a claim that somebody is "The most important photographer of his generation" should indicate how his work is superior to that of Crewdson, Tillim and others. -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking at Search&dastroy's Google search links above for 'glen e. friedman "the most significant photographer of his generation"' returns just 8 sites:
  • - an exhibition space - not a noteworthy voice on the matter to begin with, but they quote what reads like Friedman's own artist statement / bio that is likely written by himself
  • - quotes the same artist bio as above
  • - quotes the same artist bio as above
  • - quotes the same artist bio as above
  • - quotes the same artist bio as above
  • - quotes the same artist bio as above
  • - quotes the quote that quotes, seeming to claim that it means something because has copy and pasted it
  • - quotes the same artist bio as above -Lopifalko (talk)
Well why would so many sources print it if they did not believe it to be true as well? And who is to make the judgement or respected or not, that's pretty subjective. Clearly just because it's in The New York Times doesn't always mean the writer is respected, and a writer of culture who actually knows something of the culture would be much more respected within the cultures circles than an outside writer from a more circulated publication, so your use of the word "respected" is highly questionable, particularly since you yourself believe that you need "no knowledge" of the subject to write a quality article on a given subject for the commons.
Originally the article did say not "the most important" but "Considered one of the most important" so why not add that back in? if you do the print research and watch the videos and see the collections Friedman is in, it's pretty clear that he in fact is at least "One of the most important photographers of his generation." He has clearly inspired many people and has been at the forefront of three very influential cultures like no other photographer. To say "Coming to prominence in the 1980s with his photography of skateboarders and musicians, Friedman is considered one of the most important photographers of his generation." is no exaggeration or over promotion.It also helps to explain why in fact there is a Wiki article on him. Look at all the press that exists. I've never seen or heard of a photographer who has been asked and done as many extensive interviews as he has done, why would publications show the respect they do if it was not important? You added citations from recent Guardian pieces that don't go a fraction of the way into the artists work like previously cited materials do, your prejudice against more cultured and certainly relevant but independent press makes no sense.
By the way, in an obvious ploy to attempt to belittle Friedman's books I noticed you added "self published", if you did the research, why not be more correct and say under his own imprint? you seem to not understand that self publishing was not a negative in his circles, but the preferred mode of independence from the corporate publishing world until this last publication. So why not add that bit of information that is interesting if you have an understanding of the DIY ethic and culture Friedman came up in. If you read, you know Burning Flags Press was his imprint, but from the first partnership with Henry Rollins 2.13.61 publications sometimes the publications have been joint efforts.
You also changed DogTown to Santa Monica, this now reads improperly, because DogTown was not only Santa Monica, but the entire area of West Los Angeles in skateboard culture. This is a clear example of when some one attempts to improve an article, that they have no knowledge of the subject, they can ruin its credibility with those who have some knowledge, or are more well read on the subject.
After doing research on the institutions where the work sits and finding "links" for several of the ones you questioned, others that Friedman lists on his bio, do in fact have the work but don't have those collections digitized for internet retrieval or research, that hardly makes them unworthy of note.
Lopifalko you have denigrated the original article from much of it's interesting and explanatory text, (albeit sometimes celebratory, which is not negative out of hand) to a pile of unexplained factoids that don't read well without further adjectives and explanations, and worse case are not true the way you have used them (same goes for Hoary). I will take all you've said into consideration, but will source the artists website or books when needed (even though you say it is not preferred, but as noted it's clearly allowed.)
I wish I could believe that you mean well, but it hardly appears that way with the destruction you've done to this piece. You could have asked for further or different citations, but not removed the beef of the article. Please consider your edits of subjects of which you have little or no knowledge more seriously before you edit next time. Thank you. Search&dastroy — Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Three points from a talk page stalker:
  • One of the most important: It's normal for books and articles that are largely about a particular person or his/her work to say that this person is one of the most important whatevers, or even the most important whatever. And it's very likely that the writers sincerely believe this. But this kind of sourced claim could easily be added to thousands (if not tens of thousands) of Wikipedia articles, and this wouldn't be informative. The question to ask is: Do general surveys say the same thing? In this case, does some well-informed book (or even solid periodical article) about photography of the 1980s and 1990s in general say this kind of thing about Friedman? If so, that would certainly be worth adding to the article.
  • Self-publication: There are indeed plenty of self-published photobooks that are excellent or notable or both. Look into the three volumes of Parr/Badger's The Photobook and you'll see plenty. I'm happy to possess copies of a number of excellent self-published photobooks myself. Some photographers' notability rests almost entirely on their self-published photobooks: Kiyoshi Suzuki (an interesting photographer despite the boring non-article) is one. What's the difference between talking of "[somebody]'s self-published photobook" and talking of "photobook published under [somebody's] own imprint"? (I suspect it's analogous to the difference between talking of a "used car" and talking of a "pre-owned car".)
  • DogTown: Plenty of people (eg myself) have a hazy, partial understanding of LA. Encountering the unfamiliar term "DogTown", we go to DogTown, see that this is irrelevant, go to Dogtown, then to Dogtown, California, and then (since California's counties are unfamiliar), we give up. Something could be improved here and very likely you're excellently qualified to do it.
-- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits done by Lopifalko to Hal PrewittEdit

Efforts to improve the page are very much appreciated; some were helpful, however many edits have done a disservice to the living person, his bio and users of wikipedia. You and a few editors recently made a great number of changes including removing facts, relevant and contextual based content posted by many others of which has been on this page a long while. I had not worked on this article since 2012 until recently when I noticed the changes.

For over 5 years, more than 30 editors have contributed to the page. Stats show the article is currently viewed hundreds (sometime many thousands) of times each month and is pushing somewhere in the hundreds of thousands since it was created.

I am a member of WikiProject Sports Car Racing and WikiProject Biography. I have extensive knowledge and experience in these subjects and a general understanding about most of the people's skills, WikiProjects and content I have worked on or am currently developing. I focus on living people. As part of the research I try to meet them, interview anyone I can reach and conduct systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach correct conclusions. I spend hundreds of hours of effort collecting and verifying content I have published on these subjects. I have received images, historical records and obtain permissions where necessary or advisable.

I have followed these processes reviewing and working on Prewitt's bio. My recent effort was to undo some of the removals (you and a few made) and update the page with new details. You promptly reversed most if not all my changes. This is a big problem and needs to be resolved. Please undo. My objection is the removal of facts, relevant and contextual based content. I am not objecting to "toning down" content sourced from marketing, promotional materials or websites.

Show respect for this living person's bio, work done by other editors and provide users of wikipedia with the content you removed. The words do not harm the bio.

Great Wikipededia articles come from editors who do the hard research and include work done by other's who they disagree with. Having direct knowledge about subjects related to a bio along with obtaining access to the difficult to find historic details on the person produces a factual and complete biography. It is proper to flag issues, ask questions and add content. Do not remove other editors content unless factually incorrect. Not liking the style, words, disagreeing with other people opinions or finding something "promotional and badly sourced", "whole pile of less worthwhile additions", "citations of Prewitt's corporate website" or "unsupported and non-noteworthy info" does not justify removal. The correct methods is to identify, comment or ask for more citations.

- One example: your justification of using "notability by association" to remove "in the years just prior to the introduction of their first personal computer" in the sentence "He provided consulting services to IBM in the years just prior to the introduction of their first personal computer and is credited..." impacts the context and relevance. IBM is a very large company. When and what someone did is a key fact. Defining context is key to understanding relevance to Prewitt's services. This is not "notability by association".

- Here's another: In his Youth section, using "Removed superfluous / biased language that fluffs up the subject, or is not noteworthy" you removed "At 15, before he had a driver's license, he rebuilt the engine of a neighbor's Fiat after it was pronounced unsalvageable". This is a fact and clearly noteworthy ​and not superfluous nor "fluffs up the subject". How many teens rebuild engines let alone those that are unsalvageable? Prewitt grew up and became a successful and famous race car driver among many other technological based achievements. Don't you see the relevance?

Reading your talk page, appears your interest and skills relate to photography.Would be best to help on this article's photography points and leave other work to editors with direct knowledge of Prewitt and/or members of WikiProject Sports Car Racing.

​Please restore the ​facts, relevant and contextual based content.

-- Deansmith750 (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Links to photokinaEdit

Hi Lopifalko. I just reverted four of your reverts to "photokina <year>" links as I changed these links on purpose (except for the typo in one of them, of course). The intended purpose of going through the redirect is that it automatically groups events by photokina years for easier research of photokina events by year and to help expand the photokina article itself in the future. See Talk:photokina#Links to "photokina <year>" available for the rationale behind this. Thanks and greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know your rationale behind this, I understand now. -Lopifalko (talk)

A barnstarEdit

  The Editor's Barnstar
in recognition of the heavy lifting you're doing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil America (2nd nomination)

E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments are requested at "Photographs of Alan Kurdi"Edit

Hi, Please consider giving a comment in the deletion discussion for Photographs of Alan Kurdi. There does not seem to be a guideline that says that one can not have one article about the Photographs of Alan Kurdi - a set of photographs that has gathered notable reactions - and another article about the boy who is pictured lifeless in the photos, or the events leading to his death. Burst of unj (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

from the award body themselvesEdit

On this: good addition, but I think there's no need to subtract. After all, I've seen some "contributors" moan that when you only have references to the institution directly involved, this suggests that third parties aren't interested, in turn suggesting a lack of notability (groan).

Then again, the more references there are, the more link rot there's sure to be. (My work here of 8 to 10 September was no fun -- and a number of the dead links had only been created a year or so previously.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Groan indeed. I've put them back. Must stop now for a bit. Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Ta, fanx! -- Hoary (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

NY school of photographyEdit

Now freshly if modestly created. The list of what links to "New York School (art)" goes on at eye-glazing length; if you'd like to try scanning it for articles that are more likely to link to New York school of photography, much appreciated. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I will. I had noticed what you wrote on the New York School of Art article, and I have been reading Badger on the topic with a view to adding his thoughts. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, good. The latter is much more interesting than link checking. (I wonder which badgerbook this might be.) Today I looked through six big fat books that might well have written about a NY school of photography; and although there were things written in a couple of these that were compatible with the notion (and that I might well have used if I were instead writing a term paper), there was nothing usable for the article. Incidentally, an interesting point Livingston makes is that (despite the background of several of these people in Art-with-a-capital-A) they prided themselves on being photographers, not artists. As art is where more money can be found, I have considerable sympathy for the efforts of today's photographers to call themselves "artists working in lens-based media" blah blah; but it sure is refreshing to read no-horseshit accounts of people pointing their cameras at what they saw that interested them. (Um, rant over, sorry.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I was too bleary-eyed to understand what you had asked of me earlier, and completely missed that you had written New York school of photography – fantastic. I will transcribe Badger's comments from The Genius of Photography: How Photography has Changed our Lives. (BBC; Quadrille, 2007) -Lopifalko (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I've quite forgotten The Genius, though I have a vague feeling that I've read it, or at least looked at it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

There's more to come from this page, but for this is the meat of it, from page 137: "'Towards a Social Landscape The problem with photographing rocks is how to make work that expresses and evokes something more than woolly romanticism. It can be done - rocks as well as city streets have meanings, and important meanings for us - but any photographer looking to make "modern" photographs, pictures that comment upon the here and now, finds both an easier and a richer vein of material in the metropolis. Since that first image by Daguerre of the Boulevard du Temple, the street has been a natural hunting ground for photographers, especailly American photographers of the 1960s and '70s.

The key photographers at the end of the war to influence this trend were Walker Evans, Weegee and the members of the Photo League, and for them New York rather than Paris became the key city. Out of New York City came a photographic vision that was a deal rawer than the humanist street photography practised in Paris. And so, although it was never defined as such, street photography in the 1950s was very much a case of the 'New York School' and the 'School of Paris'. It would be too rude to say that they were in opposition, but cultural attitudes made for two very different approaches.'"

And from page 147: "Joel Meyerowitz's New York street pictures of the late 1960s and early '70s were in the familiar genre of the so-called New York School. There was, however, one major and crucial difference. His vibrant, complex views of the crowded New York sidewwalks were shot in colour.'"

Page 16 of Gilles Mora's The Last Photographic Heroes seems to talk around the topic without naming it as a New York School. I'll look at this when I have more time later. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"If there was a "Los Angeles School," it consisted of such photographers as ... and could be viewed as being in direct opposition to the straight, documentary-oriented New York School." - The Pleasures of Good Photographs by Gerry Badger, page 158.

"Szarkowski ... documentary, usually street-based photography that he espoused was usually a male preserve. It was also a New York Thing. The photographers he proposed as the most important of their day — Arbus, Friedlander, and Winogrand ... American women's photography of the 1970s may be seen therefore, as a challenge to the largely male culture of straight photographic modernism, and the hegemony of New York and the Museum of Modern Art, in particular. ... what some saw as the hard-headed, macho cynicism of the New York "School" of street photographers." - The Pleasures of Good Photographs by Gerry Badger, pages 203–205.

plant a few bugsEdit

Hi my friend. thanks of you would put some times to answer to me. could you plz tell me what the idiom "plant a few bugs" means? here examples [1] may help you. thanks a million Alborzagros (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! your reply helped me much. HAVE A NICE DAY. Alborzagros (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

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) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Manu BraboEdit

Given your interest in photography/photographers, you may be interested in the new page about Manu Brabo. I hope you check it out. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a good article, thanks for the contribution and for letting me know about it. I've given it a quick look over and made some amendments, obviously just revert or discuss any of my changes you don't agree with. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Leila AlaouiEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Leila Alaoui at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusunW (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Leila AlaouiEdit

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

.NET Framework version historyEdit

Although external links in the prose is unwanted, I think you should sometimes convert some of them into sources instead of just deleting them. For example, in this edit, "Support for Code Contracts" needs a source and the external link was a source. Fleet Command (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Invariably that is exactly what I do, but in this case, for example the "Support for Code Contracts" that you point out, is a link for Code Contracts for .NET itself, not for Code Contracts' inclusion in .NET Framework 4.0. So in my opinion that link isn't appropriate to use as a ref, as you have later done. The same is true for the subsequent link to the BigInteger Structure page. The link for "final version of .NET Framework 4.0" linked only to the download page for .Net 4.0, rather than to a page describing the release. The other links I removed already had an additional corresponding ref. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, for BigInteger I changed the link to have "(VS=100)" in it, which says it is added in .NET Framework 4. As for support for Code Contracts, I added the web archive link because the current link goes to Visual Studio gallery. Fleet Command (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. We both seem to have done the right thing. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

articulating screenEdit

Thanks for your help with the articulating screen site. But please undo your two revisions from 24 March 2016; there you removed the slash between seemingly different camera models in quite a few places. The slash was there for a reason. These are THE SAME cameras just with different names for different parts of the world. This is common with certain camera models and brands, the best known is maybe Canon with the Rebel and the EOS names for the same cameras. There are other such examples as you could see on this site before you changed it. So, they are NOT separate camera models. You can look it up on the internet if you are not sure. Thanks again and keep up the good work. Stillbusy (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I hoped someone would pull me up on this if that was the case (I said "I am assuming these can be unmerged?"). I'll revert. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
No big deal, really. It was a good idea that you put in the columns. The site looks nicer and is easier to read that way. Taking into consideration the space that some camera models need, especially the ones with a slash between the different names, maybe it looks even better organized if there are only two columns instead of three so that each camera model has it's own line. That's of course only a question of taste. You decide. Best wishes. Stillbusy (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Institut National des Arts de Bamako - FYIEdit

Hi Lopifalko, regarding the name of that institution I did a lot of googling and the name of it isn't exactly straightforward. I'd discussed here already. Happy to hear your take on it. Cheers. SeanMack (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, it's perhaps an improper translation. I've reverted. My preferences is usually for the format "School of Sudanese Craftsmen (now the Institut National des Arts)". I like this advice too: "Keep it simple on the alumni pages and let the debate and history be in the institute page". -Lopifalko (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

José Manuel RodriguesEdit

Hi Lopifalko,

Improvements are always welcome but you have drastically reduced the readability of the page, ánd the findability of desired specific data. It is also not a usual way of making lists on Wikipedia, divisions that improve the readability are common. I do not really understand why?? You have also repeatedly deleted facts to be found in the books provided in the footnotes, even though I have the books here in my hand saying the things you deleted. What are we going to do now?

Regards, Anne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneketanneketoverheks (talkcontribs) 18:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

PS. The thing I did really appreciated were the combined links with the ref name tag but now it seems to have stopped functioning: only the first cites all and the latter only the first citation. How is that possible and do you know how to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneketanneketoverheks (talkcontribs) 22:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I will have to deal with one thing at a time, but I will eventually deal with all that you have raised.
  • The combined references appear to be working correctly, I have made normalised them more, take a look to see if they are still broken. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "It is also not a usual way of making lists on Wikipedia, divisions that improve the readability are common." – Look at any of the hundreds of articles on photographers that I and others have formatted and you will see the lists of exhibitions and publications are listed in the manner I have reformulated the Rodrigues article into. I believe a straight list works well, takes up less space than when delineated with years; and I do not see how the lists benefit from being broken up into separate years, it seems pointless, for instance why is it important for people to read them grouped by year? A few of us wrote a definitive syntax for listing photography exhibitions, on a talk page somewhere I will try to find it -Lopifalko (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "You have also repeatedly deleted facts to be found in the books provided in the footnotes, even though I have the books here in my hand saying the things you deleted." – If claims are made then ideally they should be backed up by inline citations, rather than a list of sources at the bottom of the article. I removed some unsourced claims of his work being held in private collections because generally photographer listings include only public collections, but I have no issue with restoring this info if you disagree. I removed the bibliography section because it appeared to be a comprehensive listing of all press articles written about him, and Wikipedia does not make such comprehensive lists, preferring instead to have just a list of selected books. I removed the list of conferences he spoke at (?) because such events are not noteworthy enough for inclusion. I remove the unsourced claims about Perspektief that were written in the style that made me feel they were copied and pasted from Perspektief's own literature. I removed the claim that "the signature under his work has changed occasionally over the years..." because that seemed pointless. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community SurveyEdit

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Known vandalism?Edit

You recently reverted my update to Contact print, claiming "Vandalism from known culprit". I find this both offensive and ill-informed. Clearly you have never done any darkroom work with black-and-white paper, or you couldn't have failed to use yellow safelights. In my entire career I have never seen a red safelight.

This is also borne out by the article Safelight. I shall update the entry to refer to this page. Please do not revert it. Please explain, and hopefully apologize for, your claim "Vandalism from known culprit". Groogle (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I'm very sorry about that. I reverted an edit by that appeared to be making a sublte change to an article that did not on the surface appear to be vandalism, but from the brief research I did, did in fact appear to be vandalism. That IP had made other acts of vandalism elsewhere too. I had a few open browers tabs as I went through changes in my watch list. I then came to your edit, and because I have never used a yellow safelight, only red, I quickly thought this was another subtle but wrongful change by that IP I mentioned. I acted too quickly without thinking. I was mistaken in thinking your edit was by that same user. Sorry about that. I have used darkrooms, and never seen a yellow safelight. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Apology accepted. Groogle (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The safelight article does not bear out what you wrote, that "normally it is yellow". -Lopifalko (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It uses the term "amber", which is close enough to "yellow" for me. Looking here and on online shopping sites, it seems that red is more prevalent in the USA than elsewhere. But the principle remains: yellow is sufficient for black and white paper, and since it's brighter, it's more common in my experience. Groogle (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, all the safelights I saw were red. I am of course a dinosaur. Is this a hint there could usuefully be an article on safelights through the ages and territories? Perhaps there is one already. Midgley (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Further readingEdit

Hi Lopifalko. The essay Wikipedia:Further reading says, "Some editors list sources that they hope to use in the future to build the article in Further reading. This is neither encouraged nor prohibited." That was the spirit in which I added those sources to "Further reading" on Museum of Photographic Arts. Because their placement disturbs you, I've moved them to Talk:Museum of Photographic Arts. The list is intended to be used to improve the article during the Wikipedia:GLAM/Balboa Park/Wiki Culture Crawl edit-a-thon on Friday, an event I hope you'll join in person or virtually. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out "Some editors list sources that they hope to use in the future to build the article in Further reading," I was not aware of that, though in my opinion the talk page is a more appropriate place for storing sources for future use. It does seem appropriate for you to use Further Reading if Wiki Culture Crawl will be using them in the days ahead. I was not aware of Wiki Culture Crawl nor Wikipedia:GLAM, so thank you also for those. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Paolo MontiEdit

Would you please be so king to explain what you mean by this?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You removed "by one website" from "Paolo Monti (11 August 1908 - 29 November 1982) was an Italian photographer, considered by one website to be one of the most intellectual modern Italian photographic artists." You used the edit summary "haven't you noticed that you removed reliably sourced information?". Your edit summary doesn't reflect your edit. That edit didn't remove information, it added it; it showed that the claim was being made by a single web site. Such a lofty claim requires more and better references. Your edit summary looked disingenuous, as though it was trying to deflect attention from what it was actually doing, which to me seemed to be revising / reverting the previous edit. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
First, as an experienced user, you should know that adding "considered by one website" is not an encyclopedic style. If you have doubts whether Monti is really considered an important photographer you should add a template, not re-add a personal opinion on af idiot. Second, you edit removed (reliably sourced) info that he died in Milan - which I was referring to in my edit summary which you called "deceptive".--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
First, I did not know that about "considered by one website," so thank you for pointing that out. It seemed a reasonable thing to say considering the biographical inflation I see around. I was trigger happy. I am sorry. Second, I am also sorry to have wrongly attributed your edit summary – I am aware of MOS:BIRTHPLACE ("Birth & death places can be in lead if relevant to person's notability, but should not be mentioned in opening brackets of lead sentence alongside birth & death dates."). Your edit had a hallmark of deception to me, but it was not, I should have assumed better intentions and not acted in such haste. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Let me now revert your edit, and I promise to look later today for more sources confirming his notability (I am leaving right now, but will be back in the afternoon). I am also aware about the MOS issue, but taking the place of death down to the article requires altering the prose, for which I likely need more sources, may be in Italian.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I too will also look. I see that the source we have spoken of is at La Gondola and that "He helped found the club La Gondola in 1947". -Lopifalko (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


Yes, of course, but the dominant verb in the sentence was "plans": The French governement plans to evacuate the camp in one week's time. Don't worry about it, we all make mistakes. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The part that I commented "Wikipedia is not in the business of predicting the future" about was this separate sentence: "The migrants will be resettled in different regions of France." -Lopifalko (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

::Sorry, I don't understand. That is the plan: France plans to resettle the migrants in different regions of France since the British don't seem to want to help. Right now, the plan is to evacuate the camp within one week's time starting at 7am GMT. I hope that it will go well and that it won't turn into chaos. In any case, I'll be changing the lead tomorrow, not to worry. SashiRolls (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Good edit, thank you. Sorry, I was sleepy last night! SashiRolls (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, Lopifalko. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, Lopifalko. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! ツEdit

Dear fellow editor,  
Thank you very much for your help in improving the article I created on Clive Barda; although I had asked a couple of editors with whom I had worked before, they had given me the OK to publish the article as you found it. In particular, you helped me today by invoking WP:LINKFARM when you removed the Selected works section, as I was not aware of that guideline. Just FYI, I had included such a section after looking at the article on Henri Cartier-Bresson, which has a similar section: Notable portrait subjects, where the list of subject names is presented in columns instead of the flatlist format I had adopted. Would you therefore say that section is also a link farm and needs to be removed? Thank you for your considered advice.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 15:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate that you have a vested interest in this, having worked on it for months. It looks like a well built article - I haven't read the text yet, having only skimmed over it looking for obvious policy violations. It might be justified in removing those from the Cartier-Bresson article, I would need to think on that more than I have time for right now, in order to give my opinion. However, By my count, the Cartier-Bresson article has a total of 43 links representing the whole of Cartier-Bresson's career, where as the Barda article had 97 links just for those included in one publication, and 44 for one other publication. That seems excessive to me. I am following here in the example I have seen others make in working on biographies. To me, it seems clear that a wall of names and wikilinks is of limited value to a reader. I can appreciate that you might think otherwise. When I have more time later I will read up on the policy for this. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)'
Dear colleague,  
Thank you for your thoughtful and sensitive approach, but please don't worry: I want to get it right and I am grateful to you for enabling me to learn guidelines that are new to me. I agree with you that the earlier lists (of 97 & 44 links) could be seen as excessive and I am always happy to hear another viewpoint, as this is how we'll improve our encyclopedia. At some stage, I'd like to mention a few of these names in the article (maybe the real megastars like Menuhin, Bernstein, etc.) as it's now a bit strange that none of these names appear in the article. I don't necessarily wish to recreate a separate section for these, but I think we ought to have some in the Career section, rather than just the current three. What do you think?
In any case, very many thanks for your prompt and helpful reply.
With kind regards for now;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 18:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I have copied this section to the talk page of the article: Clive Barda, where the discussion has continued.
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 10:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! ツEdit

  The Reviewer Barnstar
Dear Lopifalko,  
I am grateful to you for all the constructive improvements you have applied to the article on Clive Barda. Thank you for all your contributions to our encyclopedia, and for all you do in support of your fellow editors.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 23:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Pdebee! You're very generous with your words. I'm glad to have been of help. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Zoe StraussEdit

Hey, I really have no idea how to send a message to you thanking you for your work on my wikipedia page... which is why I'm typing this in the most random spot. Thank you for your work, not just for my page but for the enormous amount you do on wikipedia to put up accurate and informative content and to monitor it. I'm genuinely appreciative. With Love, Zoe Strauss

Also, this can be deleted asap, I just wanted you to know! Zoestrauss (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Zoestrauss (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zoestrauss. Thank you most humbly. I really appreciate that you made the effort to notice all that, and came here to say so. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


Hello Lopifalko, I started the page today of Philippe_Echaroux, you asked me for references here :

"He is credited[by whom?] as the "inventor of concept Street Art 2.0".[citation needed]"

Philippe Echaroux is the inventor of street art 2.0, credited by the profession and the press as well, known in 44 countries following his demonstration. I have put the press articles in reference below. Is it better to put them there ? The mention on its price also comes from these articles. Thank you for your help to optimize the presentation of this personality.

links citations :

Google : inventor of concept Street Art 2.0 =

Thank you for your help

--Photomaltese (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Photomaltese. Quora is not a reliable source (see WP:RELIABLE), as it is "a question-and-answer site where questions are asked, answered, edited and organized by its community of users." Life Gallery is not necessarily a reliable source, it depends which facts it is being used to support. A Google search is not a reliable source. Whudat does not at first glimpse appear to be a reliable source. The Google Arts and Culture source was written by Subagora, which "is a cooperative agency based in Paris and Barcelona created in 2004. The organization gathers Street-Artists, Photographers, Dj's, Musicians, Producers, investors and cultural entrepreneurs", so it presumably has an interest in promoting Echaroux, it is not an objective / disinterested voice. This idea that "He invented the concept of Street Art 2.0" might be something that the artist has supplied to these publications and they recounted without critique, I don't know, this artist is new to me. All of this is problematic, but I do see the article cites Le Figaro and the BBC, so at least it has that going for it. Where I indicate that citations are needed, I would hope that you or I or someone else can add citations from reliable sources in their place. I doubt that "Street Art 2.0" is actually a thing, so perhaps a statement that has less hyperbole than "inventor of concept Street Art 2.0" can be used instead? Thanks -Lopifalko (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lopifalko,
Thank you , OK I understand. But must we wonder if the concept of Philippe Echaroux street photographer, street art 2.0 is an invention, a technique? It is his concept, new, never has anyone done so and why he is credited as the "inventor of the concept street art 2.0", by the world of photography and in the press. It made a buzz in 44 countries in 2015, worldwide recognition, in 2016, a demonstration in Amazonia of unknown portraits to support the forest.
The sources are reliable, we can not say according to our own feelings, personally on wikipedia, but to quote the press articles, without deforming them, right?
I first put the google search link without its name to find that there is no anteriority of the invention, (not to put it in reference, yes, google is not one)
Other articles indicate, describe his concept here :
in England :
In the US:
in China :
in Germany :
in France :
The world of art and photography: (Hasselblad makes him his ambassador)
2013: His photos of the Dior Award went on sale for a charity gala of the Red Cross.
Sorry, I do not understand the banner says that this article has no sources? I add them all? There are many. Thank you for your help. --Photomaltese (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lopifalko I have added articles of the press / TV in the world. (US, Germany, England, France, Brazil, Greece, Switzerland, Belgium, Poland, Norway, China ..) and holds a diploma as a specialized educator. Does it also promote awareness of disability? thank you very much for your help.--Photomaltese (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lopifalko "conference Tedx Marseille." I deleted his video you tube, replaced by the one posted by TedX.[1][2][3] How to write it? Thank you for your help for this page. --Photomaltese (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, I am busy and will reply as soon as I have time. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello again. The banner said that it was an orphan, not that it has no sources.
Just because he himself names his method "Street Art 2.0", and newspapers repeat his phrasing of it as being the "inventor" without analysis, does not make him the "inventor" of it. It is more correct to say something like "he calls his method Street Art 2.0."
Hasselblad and the BBC are cautious and they do not use the term "Street Art 2.0". That term has no meaning, there was no Street Art / Street Art 1.0 to begin with, only street art. It is for more objective, reliable and critical voices to consider whether Echaroux has indeed evolved the form. Wikipedia should not be a mouthpiece for individuals but instead try to be objective.
You say "The sources are reliable, we can not say according to our own feelings, personally on wikipedia, but to quote the press articles, without deforming them, right?" – you do not understand. Please read WP:RELIABLE. We must defer to Wikipedia's policy on what is a reliable source, and not just assume that all sources are reliable, for example The Daily Mail is not considered reliable, see Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Altaf QadriEdit

"Talk:Altaf Qadri" Dear Lopifalko,

I was modifying / adding some information to the page Altaf Qadri but it seems that you are cancelling all the changes. What went wrong, may i know? --Altafqadri (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Altafqadri, I did not cancel "all" the changes. As I described in my edit comments, I removed:
  • "award-winning" – because of WP:PEACOCK: "Words to watch: award-winning ... Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information." Please instead describe the actual notable awards that have been won.
  • "With his "sophisticated eye and highly effective technique", as described by The New York Times, he is among the top photojournalists in India." – because it was sourced to a dead link at The New York Times, a was very self serving quote, and added by a user going by the same name as the subject of the article.
-Lopifalko (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks and request suggestions for formattingEdit

Hello Lopifalko, thanks for your edits to Hnatyshyn Foundation Visual Arts Awards. May I ask you to take a look at the formatting of a draft I'm working on, User:Mduvekot/drafts/RBC Canadian Painting Competition. I haven't found a way to present the information to my satisfaction. I was hoping you'd have some suggestions. Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. To start with, you should have it in chronological order (WP:WORKS); and have no inline external links. It is a very long list, perhaps columns would help (I can demonstrate how if you need). -Lopifalko (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that suggestion. I ended up using the column-float template. That worked much better than what I had. Mduvekot (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of column float, that is a big improvement. Another thing, you shouldn't have red links in See Also. -Lopifalko (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Axel HütteEdit

Hi and many thanks for your corrections. Regarding collection lists, I've added Colección Jumex, since it's private, but highly regarded in art world and as many other private collections is opened to public visits. I think it's worth mentioning it. Regards. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Magnum Foundation: Magnum Foundation FundEdit


I'll create a talk on the talk page for the wikipedia entry about wording. But referring to the last edit, I think we can go with a different word that works better than 'ensure'. As far as I know from reading about the organization, they do follow up with the artists how they develop the projects to make sure they're sticking up with their proposals, but let's consider another word for 'ensure' if you feel that helps the text.

ED: Additionally, now I get what you were aiming with that edit. The wording is better like that as it provides clarity.

Praeliamf (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Praeliamf

Hi. Wikipedia cannot say definitively say that the process does ensure "a geographically diverse pool of proposals", without a source, which is why I changed it to say that the Foundation does this "so as to try to ensure...". It is the Foundation's intention, but it would need to have a source to say that the Foundation had managed to achieve that intention. Is this what you agree with? -Lopifalko (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems to be the main reason why they have nominators from all over the world. They want to have an accurate representation of the different communities and experiences. For example, Alessandro Penso's project that appeared on Time was part of having an accurate representation of the migration experience, and the long form style he aimed for allowed that. But, considering it's hard to prove complete accomplishment from this intention, I like the edit you did more than the other text. On the next program I'm adding up, I'm providing a source about in situ photographic projects, but it's a different circumstance than with the magnum foundation fund grant. Praeliamf (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Praeliamf
How about this?: "The Magnum Foundation Fund is by nomination only – typically educators, editors, curators, and critics with expertise in specific areas around the globe – so as to try to ensure a geographically diverse pool of proposals." -Lopifalko (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, let's go for that edit.Praeliamf (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Praeliamf

Magnum Foundation: History + MissionEdit


So, this is the mission statement from their official site: "Magnum Foundation is a non-profit organization founded in 2007 by the members of Magnum Photos. Through grantmaking, mentoring, and creative collaborations, Magnum Foundation partners with socially engaged imagemakers experimenting with new models for storytelling."

I have been a bit reluctant about including it because of Wikipedia's policy's regarding first sources, especially with organizations, including non-profits. What do you think? Should it go there with a note, or completely dismiss it?

Second, I couldn't find a complete statement where the magnum foundation consortium, which is the beta webpage that holds the archive projects, is discussed. Should it go as a note too, or dismiss it? Or, a third option, leave it as citation needed?

Praeliamf (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Praeliamf

Have a look at this as an example that seems acceptable for the mission statement: In-Public#Manifesto. Regarding the magnum foundation consortium, sorry I'm tired, if the web page is a "beta" page, beta means it is a page in development, not ready for public consumption, is that a correct interpretation? -Lopifalko (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I just checked the beta link and it works. The thing though is that the archive and research bit in the program section does a better job developing the idea, so I placed that sentence in the history and mission as a mention of what they do and then really explain it on the program section. It's probably wiser to leave it now as citation needed until I can find a statement, report or article about it. Praeliamf (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Praeliamf

Robert Frank exhibitions (review)Edit

Dear Lopifalko, I saw that you reviewed my contribution about Robert Frank's exhibitions, I tried to correct them once more listing also the references that I found... could you maybe take a look? Thank you! Jennyzürich (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your fully referenced contribution. They would be improved by separating between solo and group exhibitions. Also, your referencing syntax could be improved upon, such as including the page title and date accessed (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!Edit

  Thanks for the help! Amicoimmaginario (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. If you have any questions about my edits please just ask and I'll explain further. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Into the Jaws of Death CommentEdit

Your recent edit of the article Into the Jaws of Death is in error. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters the sentence "Taxis to Hell – and Back – Into the Jaws of Death is a photograph taken on June 6, 1944, by Robert F. Sargent, a Chief Photographer's Mate in the United States Coast Guard." should read "Taxis to Hell – and Back – Into the Jaws of Death is a photograph taken on June 6, 1944, by Robert F. Sargent, a chief photographer's mate in the United States Coast Guard."

Had the sentence read "Taxis to Hell – and Back – Into the Jaws of Death is a photograph taken on June 6, 1944, by Chief Photographer's Mate Robert F. Sargent, who served in the United States Coast Guard." the capitalization would be correct.

I will leave it to you to decide if you want to remove the capitalization or use the Coast Guardsman's rating title. A rating in naval terminology is the same as a rank used by officers in all services and enlisted in armies and air forces and it is capitalized when proceeding the persons name. Anywhere else in a sentence it is not. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I reverted it. Thank you for pointing this out. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
No worries...cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

John Ranard Wiki BioEdit

Hi Lopifalko. Something strange has happened to the Wikipedia bio on John Ranard. The box with summary material on the top right has (almost) diminished. Look at the second paragraph. It seems a mess of stuff from the top box ended up there. I wouldn't dare try to fix this and have no idea what happened. Can you help? (I have to take my computer to the shop tomorrow or next day. I may not be able to answer for over 10 days.) I am not so adept at using these talk pages. Hope this comes through. (user talk: Hsaya) —Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I was just fixing it for you but it looks as though you have done it yourself. Good. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Antanas SutkusEdit

ah, ok. thanks for reverting me. i should have asked at the talk page instead :) TemTem (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That's OK, bold editing is fine. The other quotes were direct from the same article but I retained your removal of them as the quote was short and generic. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Dayo IsraelEdit

Hello Lopifalko, thank for your recent contributions on the subjects Dayo Israel. I am not contesting if your edits are according to Wikipedia standard or not, i am only restructuring the page by removing promotional items for it since it was recently tagged for speedy deletion. Please do understand as am re-editing the page to reflect non-promotional and from a neutral point of view. Thanks Kaizenify (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Dayo Israel helpEdit

Hello lopifalko, thank you for all the necessary contributions on Dayo Israel and your accommodating acceptance. However, i think removing his first bid to contest for a political office doesn't satisfy the subject as an encyclopedia biography. As much as its suppose to be short and relative but the subject bid into a political office is one notable area that has enjoyed coverage from multiple reliable sources and should be included as it gives complete encyclopedia image of the subjects. Thanks once again for all your contributions, will earnestly await a reply from you. Kaizenify (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

He tried to be a candidate and failed, that does not seem noteworthy to me but if you believe it is then please add the info back and I will not remove it again. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
wow, you are such a great man/woman, very hospitable.. I wouldn't mind adopting you as a mentor. Kaizenify (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I suppose, you said I can reverse the political bid if I want to. I did bit your reverse it back again. Thanks. Waiting to hear from you. Kaizenify (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. I'm not sure what happened there, I did click on something that brought up a screen I hadn't seen before. I didn't do it intentionally. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hostel WarEdit

Hello, first thanks for helping. Greg Marinovich and "Hostel war" I explain this after the weekend, because RL is priority No. 1.

PS maybe I can use this link from the page by Greg Marionovich to explain the Hostel War. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope we can find a better source than this, preferably from a reliable source such as a newspaper. If "Thousands of people, both civilians and combatants died in the so-called Hostel War from 1989-1995" then I am surprised Wikipedia does not have an article on it. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I am also surprised. I try to find some better source. This was only a very fast research :-).--Maxim Pouska (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

PS hostel war:link 2- maybe only Marinovich - hi is a trained writer in the team of the Bang Bang Club can speak about it.

A second linK: Hostel War link 3--Maxim Pouska (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
PS 2 - I never stop to do some more research :-) - Segal, L. (1991). The Human Face of Violence: Hostel dwellers speak. In The Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1, March. - In the Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 190-231, March 1991. - Lauren Segal is a former Researcher at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation. OK now? - Hostel War a studie You can use what you like best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
PS 3 I inserted the link "The Human Face of Violence: Hostel dwellers speak". Sorry I'm not used to do the perfect formatting for the reference at this time. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I find it of interest to read about this topic from the links you provide, and they answer my initial question as to what this conflict was. However they are not suitable for the Marinovich article as they do not mention him, they do not support the claim that he was there. Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
OK. If you looking for a citation like this, then I can use the book by Marinovich and Silva wich inline sources. He co-authored the book The Bang-Bang Club: Snapshots from a Hidden War (2000). The hostel-war is described on many pages. The book is on my desk.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
That sounds good. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I do it sunday :-).--Maxim Pouska (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Sebastiano TomadaEdit

Thanks for reviewing the article. I see you made a few changes which are very much appreciated. I also see that you are into photography as am I. You may be interested in the draft Draft:Christian Cravo which I am working on. Feel free to make edits if you like as I would love any feedback you may have. If not, that is fine as well. Cheers! --RTotzke (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Lopifalko. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links to manuals from butkus.orgEdit

I was hoping you might join the discussion at User talk:Butkusmi#December 2017. He's spammed the links, and at least two ips have spammed them as well, so any that are kept should be clearly appropriate with consensus to keep them. --Ronz (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that discussion. Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of references, links and categoriesEdit

Hi Lopifalko,

It's good that you are cleaning up articles (some are in a really bad shape), but unfortunately I have run into a few of your edits with which I take issue, as they are destroying carefully built infrastructure and are counter-productive:

  • You were removing references with dead links without replacing them by archived links or substituting them by better references. Please don't do this. A reference remains a reference even with a permanently dead link - after all, someone in the past used it to support contents in the article, and if you remove the reference just because the link went dead, the content effectively becomes unreferenced, and in the end contents, which was once validly sourced, may be removed - even whole articles may be deleted because of this later on. Realistically, some decades in the future almost all links will become dead somewhen (even may) - and in many cases we (or future editors) won't be able to find alternative sources. Does this mean, future Wikipedians should remove almost all the contents contributed by Wikipedians so far and currently only sourced by web links rather than books? Certainly not - at some point, we will have to trust past Wikipedians that the contents was actually supported by what now is a dead link, and should consider ourselves happy that the information was at least preserved in Wikipedia. Otherwise, the whole project will be doomed to fail in the long run and all our present efforts to build an encyclopedia preserving the past and present would be pointless.
  • I also saw that you are removing links to redirects if they happen to refer to the same target article (in particular, if those links are located close to each other in an article). This isn't helpful as well, as the purpose of redirects is to "abstract" such terms from the organization of contents behind the surface. While redirects may point to the same target page at present (sometimes to different sub-sections in an article), this may not hold true in the future once contents get moved around. Unlinking some of such redirects is counter-productive as a reader cannot know in advance that the redirects were pointing to the same place, and might assume that Wikipedia does not contain any information about f.e. a particular camera model if it is not linked any more. Also, removing links will make it impossible to reverse-lookup information through "What links here?" and will create invalid page statistics.
  • The third issue I stumbled upon is your removal of categories from redirects, and effectively the removal of sub-categories as in the "Sony image processor" case. Redirects carrying categories are perfectly valid, if not even desired. There is no issue with categories populated only by redirects even if they would happen to point to the same article (see point 2 above). The category system is used to look up terms like in a book's index, and it is desirable that all such terms show up in them (except for spelling variants of course). So, if f.e. BIONZ A and BIONZ B are two valid terms someone may look for, they both should be listed in a category, so that readers will find the information relevant to them when browsing the category system. You cannot expect that a reader looking for BIONZ B will look up that information under BIONZ A.
Also, as a consequence of your removal of categories from redirects some categories may become unpopulated and therefore be removed at a later stage. In the Sony case, this would have the ill effect that BIONZ would no longer be found as an item in a sub-category under the Sony category (as a parent category such as "Image processors" cannot be a valid sub-category of the Sony category - that's one of the reasons why, for orthogonality of the category system, it was further split up into sub-categories like f.e. "Sony image processors", which could be made part of the various vendor categories, even if sparely populated). This would have the bad consequence that readers browsing the Sony category might incorrectly assume that we don't have an article on BIONZ at all. To avoid this, all the parent categories of a too-be-deleted category would have to be added to the redirects (and articles) unlinked from that very category by the person removing the categories from the redirect/article in the first place (as the deleting admin only sees an empty category and cannot know the former entries in order to add the categories to them) - otherwise carefully built infrastructure will be destroyed. However, if a category already has several entries, it shouldn't be deleted at all.

Thanks and greetings, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Richard ArentzEdit


I am writing this on behalf of Richard Arentz - photographer mentioned in the Platinum Print entry and author of the book "Platinum and palladium printing".

Dick and I are currently trying to "figure out" wikipedia well enough so we can deal with the issues he has with the use of his name there. He also wants to create a wiki page for himself. I felt it makes the most sense to reach out to you first to see if you're willing to help us.

My apologies if I'm somehow breaking a Wikipedia rule by including this information here. As a user interface person who concentrates on usability for all things related to human interaction/usage, I'm a little surprised −it isn't easier to for Dick to *quickly* make his point to the user who has been typing his name here without his consent.

I just now enabled email access here (apparently - that has yet to be tested/proven). If you like feel free to email me here and I can put you in direct contact with Dick Arentz:

Thank you!! John AhearnHazyj (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC) 510 295-8024

Hi. I can help look into whether Richard Arentz / Dick Arentz meets the criteria for an article as set out in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Please use this talk page and not email, thanks.
As for "the issues he has with the use of his name there", please note that Wikipedia is not Dick Arentz's site so it is not a requirement that he give "his consent" for his name to be added to it. I have been removing the repeated addition of his name to Platinum print under the "Major photographers using the technique" section because there were no references added to show he was a "major photographer" and nor was there a Wikipedia article to prove that. -Lopifalko (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I want to clear up a misunderstanding that I created, since it seems that without Dick uttering a word I've led you to believe that he doesn't want his name to be used without his consent. That wasn't my intention and it certainly isn't fair to him. Dick simply hopes that any references to his work are correct and fair.
No need for your help - we're moving ahead now with his Wiki page/article. Again, we're just getting started which is what everyone else needs to do at some point as well.
John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazyj (talkcontribs) 17:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I look forward to it. Please be mindful of Wikipedia:Autobiography. You are welcome to ask me for help if you need it, here. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Lists of peopleEdit

Hi I removed the non notable members of In-Public as per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi I removed the non notable members of In-Public as per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've read that linked page and understand. Thanks for explaining. I want to add that past members are not included on the list at the In-Public site, though I understand from what you say that WP:LISTPEOPLE still means they should not be included. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I also removed the manifesto and added the saliant point into the lead as per WP:MISSION. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Arkady BabchenkoEdit

It is the right of anyone to WP:BOLD-ly add content, it also the right to revert in accordance with WP:BRD. In order to avoid a war in editing, kindly seek consensus on the talk page. To help you along, you can tag the article with a dispute tag to gain consensus.

BTW- You have found some pretty good sources and maintained neutrality in editing. As per summary, I also said th0e guardian's previous publishing on information is fine, my dispute was merely content taken from a clearly false article. Finding another source is not going to be hard. WP:ONUS. Lihaas (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I reverted your whole edit but the part I had issue with was your removal of "then to Israel, before settling in Kiev (Ukraine)", sourced to The Irish Times. Perhaps you removed this mistakenly whilst removing info sourced to elsewhere. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Where I said "This establishes notability. You cannot remove every ref for every source that was duped by his fave murder.", that was in regard to you removing "His writing has been compared with Joseph Heller's Catch-22 and Leo Tolstoy's early stories about Russia's 19th century Caucasus wars", which was sourced to The Guardian, and does not appear to tally with you saying "my dispute was merely content taken from a clearly false article". -Lopifalko (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Should we continue this on the page for discussion to get consensus? Migh tbe easier. I have kept content but just tagged pending better sources. Should be good in the interim? (Also as said kept articles from same source that were different, I find certain said articles pretty dubious considering the writer of that clearly did not verify before publishing)
no content was removed. This tag should also help find better sources. I think the talk apage is better in the interim to avoid an edit war. (per BRD an accomodation)Lihaas (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"Add this again when it has happened"Edit

Not worth having a mention of an upcoming statue in the Stik article, then, and updating it when it's installed? It got press coverage, and without that it reads like he hasn't done anything of note since 2013. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Perhaps he has not done anything since 2013 then? I do not know. My issue with your contribution is that generally, unless something happens, then there is nothing to report; planning for something happening is not notable in the way that the actual event is notable. That is unless it has significant coverage in reliable sources, which would give an indication that the expectation is notable in itself. According to your source, the piece has only secured planning permission. That source, Eastlondonlines, is not a reliable source, being "an independent local news website". I suggest this information be added when it has happened. Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
You're absolutely right that the statue doesn't yet warrant a full article according to Wikipedia:Notability, but I'm not trying to create that. I'm just adding a small verifiable fact about what the artist is up to these days. There's also a press release from Hackney council. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not talking about a new article, but the inclusion of this info in current articles. Hackney council announcing it has granted planning permission for the piece is not an indication of the notability of the piece, first of all because Hackney council has a vested interest, and secondly because planning permission is a long way from realisation. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability means "whether a given topic warrants its own article". Do you mean WP:NOTEWORTHY? A council commissioning a prominent statue from a graffiti artist, rather than eg. painting over his work and calling the police, seems a useful piece of context for his work, even if it doesn't happen. The article could use more content, and I don't see how this harms it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't mention Wikipedia:Notability. WP:NOTEWORTHY states ""Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources". If for the reasons you give this "seems a useful piece of context for his work" then we should look for reliable sources that mention it, and it is their attention that defines this planning permission as notable, not us. Are you able to find more coverage? Please do as you wish as I have explained what I believe to be Wikipedia's policy and will not stand in your way if you choose to ignore it, and I remain happy to help. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Into the Jaws of DeathEdit

My purpose in linking the term Higgins boat in the article Into the Jaws of Death was to help the reader understand the term Higgins boat. In the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking sub-section 'Duplicate and repeat links', it says: Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. I see no harm in having a link that helps the reader understand the term "Higgins boat". On the other hand, perhaps the term should not be used in that paragraph at all and the term "LCVP" should be substituted. My only concern was for the reader. You do what you think is best. Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted your addition of the wikilink as per WP:OVERLINK, because it is already linked to in the previous section, "The photograph". Did you not notice this link, or do you think it requires the second link? -Lopifalko (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Ha! Missed that...some times I could hide my own Easter eggs! The article is fine the way it is now. You have improved it... Cheers... Cuprum17 (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Arkady BabchenkoEdit

Vanamonde (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you Lopifalko for your encouraging thanks on edits I have made...kind inspiration from someone making far bigger contributions than mine of articles on photographers on WP. So good to know you are out there making a difference in this area of research! Jamesmcardle(talk) 02:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

This is remarkably kind of you to say. I appreciate it and it is encouraging, thank you Jamesmcardle! I value your own significant contributions to the topic. It's a pleasure to be of help. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Naomi HarrisEdit

Hi, I merged Early Education and Career into one section (Biography), because I added other sections after your edit. However, I can change it back if it doesn't work. ThanksAbonzz (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks good. I am not a fan of small sections, despite having created it, I was being lazy in not incorporating it the way you have. Thanks for getting in touch. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your editsEdit

  The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for you great edits of photography themed articles, I've started Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Derren Brown revisionEdit

In this edit, you accepted a change which also removed the infobox image, which I think you didn't intend. --GRuban (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I must not fully understand the review process yet because it appears I accepted two revisions and not just the one. Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Would you say why you prefer the books repeated in the lede in Bob Carlos ClarkeEdit

please? (As left, the article three times gave the count, and twice enumerated them. It is not currently a long article.) Midgley (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD says: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." From what I see currently his books are described in the lead section and are listed under Publications, which seems the correct way to present them, do you disagree? -Lopifalko (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
"6 books" is concise. Midgley (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it benefits the article to be that concise. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Angela Cappetta article, again.Edit

Same problem, rearing it's head. See this edit and prev 2 please, the insistence on using the subject's own webpage/blog as a source to include info about her work, continuing to edit war over this matter. Perhaps it's time to remove the article under WP:Notability? Thanks. (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I'll have a look when I next have an opportunity. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree there appears not enough in the article to satisfy WP:GNG. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a fluent wikipedian as you are. Can you being the deletion process? Thanks. (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
As far as the article's current state, her inclusion in 1 touring group exhibition, recipient of 4 fellowships, inclusion in 1 public collection, and all sources being primary sources, it would not appear to scrape over the bar of notability. However, this page at Cappetta's site claims "Abuelita, NYC from the project Glendalis, in the permanent collection of the Corcoran Gallery of Art Washington D.C." and that "Attached above is the letter written to Angela Cappetta from Corcoran curator Paul Roth, curator* of Photographs at the Corcoran museum of art in Washington, D.C. This letter summarized Angela Cappetta‘s contribution to the Robert Frank show London/Wales." Inclusion in the collection of a major institution and in one of its exhibitions is notable. I find no mention on the web of her inclusion in that exhibition, not even here at the scrape of the Corcoran's page for the exhibition. Photography Now tells us at least that "Both Sides of the Street also includes a number of works on loan from private collections in order to broaden the scope of the exhibition and focus our attention on exemplary prints by important photographers." Of-course the Corcoran is now closed and its collection has moved to the National Gallery of Art. Again that museum has no record of Cappetta's work held in its collection when using its search tool here, but these institutions are glacially slow at updating their records. I err on the side of expectation that these claims are true and expect that eventually WP:RELIABLE sources will be published to support them. The photo on Cappetta's site supporting the claim of the exhibition may be reliable enough to include that exhibition, I do not know. This makes me unwilling to propose this article for deletion. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Fair. THanks for your help. (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


(Undid revision 855312423 by Kunst Additions (talk) Please only add exhibitions when each has a WP:RELIABLE source included, thank you) bkb (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

What is the point you are trying to make? -Lopifalko (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
If or when? bkb (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the grammar correction Bussakendle. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
As I am myself prone to such errors, I see them (as usually), if others fall into the pitch of False friends. bkb (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I can help - correct is "SONNENSTAND - Sonnenstand", written on the page of the Gallery At the end of the listing. Best --Maxim Pouska (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the source Maxim Pouska, I have added it to the article. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kojo FundsEdit

Hi, I appreciate you disabling categories on Draft:Kojo Funds. I've been trying to explain to the editor, who created this draft (all IPs are from the same provider, I assume it's one person), as well as Draft:Lotto Boyz, not to enable them (1 2 3 4), but they failed to respond. I truly have no idea what to do in this situation, as me reverting further might come off as edit warring. Should they be reported to administrators' noticeboard? As you are a much more experienced editor than me, I would be grateful if you could share some ideas about what to do now. — bieχχ (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. If it looks hopeless, the options all counter productive, then rather than get embroiled in procedure my angle is to ignore the categories and instead make the article worthy of publication and take it to article space as soon as possible. I have begun doing just that. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Very good job on the article, thank you. I think its ready for the mainspace. — bieχχ (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


Hello. Help copy edit, improvements, add archive link for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply As To OverlinkingEdit

Greetings, Lopifalko. Thank you for your note of a few days ago about linking and overlinking. I had been going through articles on Wikipedia that were flagged as either link-absent or link-deficient.

I've seen the guidelines on linking, how much to link, where, and so forth. What I was linking and how much is in perfect keeping with what is regular practice here. I have over the last few years adapted my linking to the common dealings in English Wiki. My style and choices of links follow de facto standards on here from other editors. I'm just following the herd. If you noticed my edits and evaluated them in a vacuum, I would invite you to compare them to every other page and how they're linked.

The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia's standards on wikilinks aren't followed all that closely. Source: me, a regular, informed user since 2005. Suggestion: perhaps acquiescing in reality? E.g.: countries often get unnecessarily wikilinked, as with "Baseball is popular in -Canada-, -Venezuela-...". I don't do that. I would link there, if at all, as "Canadian people" or, better, "Canadian sport" as more relevant; most others don't. If I do add a link in that scenario, it's because the last guy did, and if I don't, someone else will. Another example is links in charts. Countries are often repeatedly linked there, too. I don't do that, but... most do. I'm not gonna rock the boat; I've been reverted when I do so.

I'll also list more precise, and sometimes less important, terms when the article itself is short or less than monumental. It works well that way. And remember: every reader has the option to click on a wikilink, or not. Indeed, I submit we should be offering more, not fewer, links anyhow for people to click and educate themselves from. If they don't want to learn about -virginity- or -Vesta- from reading about the Vestal Virgins, fine. But maybe they do.

I further submit my work for you all isn't pollutive or out of line. I volunteer my efforts to Wikipedia with all beneficence. I really see very little that I've done to offend the readership here, or the quality of your corpus of articles. I'd welcome a reply :) Best, Veryproicelandic (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Veryproicelandic, which article are you talking about please? Presumably I was applying WP:OVERLINK, which I do to many articles. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
None in particular. Your note to me regarded my editing/linking practices in general... :) Veryproicelandic (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I have found the edits in question and re-read MOS:CONTEXTLINK and looked at the affected articles. Sorry, I was wrong in my consideration of what I at that time considered too-broad wikilinks. In haste they appeared overly broad but in context of their subject they now appear OK to me. Sorry. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for copy editEdit

Please, take a look to help copy edit since article Ehsan Sehgal was messed as I see the edit summary. Thanks. Saurusleo (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits to my draftEdit

I saw you made some helpful changes to my draft for Nancy Y. Lee and wanted to thank you for that. Would you be interested in helping further review it for publishing it as a mainspace article?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi and thanks. I saw you ask someone else for input, so thought I'd offer a little help. However, sorry, I'm not interested in helping more because from the text so far she does not appear to be notable enough. Good luck with demonstrating notability though. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer grantedEdit

Hi Lopifalko. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, do check back at WP:PERM in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion.  Swarm  talk  03:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018Edit


Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Lopifalko,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
  • Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Extinction RebellionEdit

Thanks for your contribution to the article draft about Extinction Rebellion. A better use of the model to cite news would allow to display the author and publication date. Do you need help to achieve that? Also, could turn the draft into a real article today? Thanks in advance. (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC).

I don't know what you mean by "A better use of the model", do you mean add author and publication date to the ref? I am using Citoid to make references automatically and have not time to manually add details it misses. You are welcome to add them. I was going to say the same to you, that we should publish this ASAP. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, excellent, please go ahead. Thanks! (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC).
Done. It now needs incorporating elsewhere appropriate in the encyclopedia so that it isn't an orphan. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Extinction Rebellion tooEdit

Hi - we appear to be working on the same article and to avoid unnecessary re-editing I will wait after any discussion to continue.

Whilst facebook is not itself a reliable source, the live video of that day is the best and most detailed record of events on Oct31 details of which I have failed to find in mainstream media reports. The media reports tend to be sparse and concentrate mainly on a few points, the high profile speakers and number of arrests, hence I have used the video as a source but included a time footnote (ftn) to allow others to easily check that the details are fairly represented.

The other ref to include a link to the primary source of the "Declaration of Rebellion" was to allow those interested in more depth to more easily link with the original text.

This is a fast emerging movement that is rapidly changing and media/public interest is growing - pageviews are up yesterday from 731 to 1,187 - I hope our wikipedia article reflects an accurate and balanced summary of events so far.

ThanksBorisAndDoris (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your consideration. Wikipedia should use independent WP:RELIABLE sources, using their coverage to reflect what Wikipedia thus considers notable events. A raw account of the event in the form of a video, published by the subject of the article, does not conform with that principle. If the referencing diverges from independent reliable sources then the quality of the article suffers. The "Declaration of Rebellion" source did not support the claim it purported to that "An assembly took place at Parliament Square on 31 October 2018, and drew more than a thousand people to hear the "Declaration of Rebellion"", it was a link to the declaration itself. The place for that kind of link is in the External Links section, but given this is easily found at the official website then this link is unnecessary, given WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I appreciate that normally we would be regard the media as the better source but without detailed reports it would seem appropriate to use other sources. For a more fully detailed reply I have continued this on the article talk page Talk:Extinction Rebellion, where I should probably have started this thread.
All the bestBorisAndDoris (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Lopifalko. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thompson and GekasEdit

FYI, I am not a big fan of the two photographers above... if I had my druthers they would not be in any encyclopedia. I think it's good that you pushed on the source quality, as it enhances the overall quality. But alas, these two have their sources, even if they are really niche operators in the field. It's a downfall of Wikipedia in a sense that we are so general in our requirements. What we might consider to be minor contributors to the field of fine art or photography end up with pages.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for saying this. Also, it's useful for me to learn how the fine art photographers are accomodated here more for their sources than for other tangible achievements. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Kalliope AmorphousEdit

What's your take on the above page? I just removed a bunch of slideshare(!), blurb and other non-rs sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It rests on a weak foundation of lot of presumably inconsequential blogs. However there are a couple of good sources–HuffPost and Dazed. Plus the Julia Margaret Cameron Award is a notable enough award that the British Journal of Photography will have an article on a winner, though no sign yet of a record of Amorphous winning it. If she hasn't enough WP:RS to support just the claim of a fine-art photographer, then where's the meat of her career? The article lists only one exhibition, however her own site lists many. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Paul RoeEdit

Done. Two different newspaper articles cited that confirm his relationship to Peter Roe, as well as his previous teams (even added another one). -Creativewill (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This is good Creativewill. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Lola Alvarez BravoEdit

I see that you have been monitoring the improvement of Álvarez's article. Before nominating it for GA, I am working to clarify the image use. I do not think we can use the Kahlo photo, nor the one on María Izquierdo, as we have no justification that I am aware of. María Izquierdo's seems to be a copyvio upload and on Kahlo's there is no in-depth discussion of the image itself. I could not find the image itself discussed, nor even its title to include in the article. References to her work on Kahlo abound, certainly, but this particular image seems questionable to my mind without specifics to discuss in the article and justify why it above all others is indicative of her work. See discussion here, where I am trying to build a case for a couple of others that we do have information on. If you have any information that would help build a case for keeping the Kahlo image, please ping me. SusunW (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry SusunW I don't know enough about Alvarez Bravo to aid the discussion on justifying any of the images and it appears you are learning well enough about NFCC. Well done for steering the article towards GA. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, at any rate, we have a plan for the photos and a nomination date we're shooting for. SusunW (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Paul Trouble AndersonEdit

Hi! As the person who recently created the Colin Faver page (I've also just re-worked Norman Jay too), wanted to say thanks for creating one for Paul Trouble. Used to love his shows on early legal Kiss especially. Cheers Fusedpirates (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here to say so. There is so much more that can be said about him I'm sure, it's merely a stub so far. I'm going to make some alterations to your Colin Faver article, if there's anything you don't like then please revert those particular changes or let's discuss. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
All good :) Fusedpirates (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia.Edit

Hey, the link that is added is because it is a photographic studio. Having that link there will help people see what photographic studio looks like. It is a modern studio. It has professional equipment and spaces that will help users see what photographic studio looks like. The anchor text that says Evolution Of Photographic Studios doesn't have link that is related to the text or has any more information that lets users see the evolution of photographic studio. Thanks. It is not about nofollow link. I was providing information to users which will be helpful when they want further information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipeshsilwal (talkcontribs) 17:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018Edit

Hello Lopifalko,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Ingrid PollardEdit

Thank you for the thank you! You've motivated me to see how the Talk feature works - and to create a user page - as I enjoy seeing some of the links you have. So, thank you! I'm also going to add a reference to an interview Ingrid Pollard did back in 1987. I have a copy of "Polareyes" a journal by and about Black Women working in photography that she was interviewed in. Nicolet1327

Your thread has been archivedEdit


Hi Lopifalko! You created a thread called Where is the log of why domains were blacklisted? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Lola Álvarez BravoEdit

 On 9 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lola Álvarez Bravo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that photographer Lola Álvarez Bravo was described by Alfonso Michel as Mexico's most important painter? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lola Álvarez Bravo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lola Álvarez Bravo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Arno Rafael Minkkinen - there is more ;)Edit

Good morning Lopifalko,

Thank you for your quick improvements of the extensive section! Trying to pick up your idea with the column list, I tried to implement the same for the "solo exhibitions" section (which is also way too long imo). But I didn't seem to be as successful with the col-list template. Can you maybe help me out / explain a way to (quickly) move content like that into the template?

Many thanks, --RuhriJörg 06:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks. Good work yourself. I have used columns-list, is that what you were looking for? I am not convinced it is still too long: the "Critical writings, essays and fiction" section may or may not be notable, as essays usually are not; "Teaching activities" is still too long/detailed. "Awards", "Solo exhibitions", "Collections" are only too long because they are unsourced. "Collections" could be removed and restored only when sourced. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
More of the unsourced private galleries can be removed from the exhibitions section. Please carry on the good work you were doing. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2019 Nairobi hotel attackEdit

 On 16 January 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 Nairobi hotel attack, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking for helpEdit


I was looking for some small help. I created a new article in my user sandbox now the article stands transferred at Draft:Kithaab. The article has already received copyedit support from two Wikipedia Teahouse volunteer editors and has been recommended as complete and ready to be submitted for approval. Requesting your kind support in process of reviewing and accepting the article Draft:Kithaab. Thanks in advance and warm regards. Bookku (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I will have a look. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edits to "Mercedes-Benz Stadium"Edit

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to "Nobuyoshi Araki" for the reason "'Collections' is the standardised name used for all (as far as I have seen) photography articles)". I'm not familiar with photography articles as a class. I made the change because I had just been adding the book Araki by Araki (which can also be termed a "collection") to the article and found the word to be ambiguous, so I modified the section title to be more precise. —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Turning Point UKEdit

Hello, Lopifalko,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Turning Point UK should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turning Point UK .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Discographies and sourcingEdit

Regarding this edit to Cadet (rapper) where you removed a source for the discography section with the edit summary "No source needed". I'm not sure where you've acquired that belief from but it is incorrect, like almost everything on Wikipedia discography sections do need to be supported by citations to reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

OK then I stand corrected. Let's re-add it without the blatant "Sources:". -Lopifalko (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Chronological order editsEdit

Thank you for editing the Chronological order of exhibitions in several of my created pages - that was a ton of work on your part having to reverse them!

I was not aware that Wikipedia requires that exhibitions be listed in the chronological order of oldest to most recent. In the US, the more "standard" format for listing exhibitions that one "sees" in most artists' CVs, resumes, grant applications, etc. is the opposite - that is most recent first... then working its way down to oldest.

In any event, will do it the approved way from now on: oldest first!

AD--Artdoofus (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Artdoofus, talk page kibitzer here. ¶ Yes, the order should be "oldest at the top, down to newest at the bottom". (This is prescribed somewhere or other.) ¶ Inverting the order needn't be as painful as it first seems. Here's how I do it. Create a spreadsheet (I use LibreOffice Calc) that's empty aside from a single column at the far left, in which you've numbered each cell: "1", "2", "3" down to as many as you think you might need. Copy the offending (inverted order) list. Paste its content to the second column of your spreadsheet. Get your spreadsheet software to sort on the first column in descending order. Your second column will now be in the desired order. Copy (cut) its content; paste this to the Wikipedia article. Get your spreadsheet software to sort on the first column in ascending order; your spreadsheet is now ready for reuse. ¶ This is of course a lot faster than cutting and pasting individual entries within a list; but very possibly Lopifalko uses some process that's niftier than mine. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Hoary… Ooooooh! That is a great idea and process! Thank you! :-) --Artdoofus (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Hoary. And Artdoofus, an alternative method is to ask a search engine about "sort text list". You will find web sites in which you paste the list, press a button, and the order is reversed. It takes a couple of seconds to complete the whole process. Artists themselves list their exhibitions and works in reversrse chronological order becausse they want people to see the best / most recent work first. Wikipedia however has a policy of showing in chronological order (I also do not know a reference fo that for exhibitions, but for books see WP:WORKS. For most changes I have made to your articles, I have left a wikilink in the edit summary which refers to a page describing the reason for the changes I make. If you would like any more help, please just ask. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Lopifalko - I generally do follow those wikilinks as I learn my way through WP - sometimes they help a lot... in this case it didn't - but no worries... now I know the approved way and a couple of easy ways to reverse it... Thanks! --Artdoofus (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Lopifalko".