User talk:Calliopejen1/Archive 1

Copyright of Image:Alaska palin.jpg

The image maybe has been put a wrong copyright tag, but I am sure it is within the fair use. Probably not the TV one, but I think {{Non-free fair use in}} would qualify. There is currently no free image to illustrate Governor Sarah Palin, so it is irreplaceable fair use. Also it is necessary to illustrate what does she look like, as Palin is certainly a nationally prominent figure. Wooyi 19:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! :)

Hi Jen,

Thanks for starting up the Fashion WikiProject; it's great to have a sister WikiProject! :) If you haven't already, you should definitely invite Paula Kate, who has been a force of nature in developing the history of fashion pages on Wikipedia; she'll be delighted to join, I'm sure. You could also make an announcement at the Textile Arts WikiProject as well; there are likely others there who would like to join. It's great that there's already a Fashion Portal.

I'm also really happy to meet you; you seem, well, amazingly cool. Also, there aren't many fashionistas here, so we need to stick together; editing is more fun in a group. :)

If you need help setting up the MathBot to assess the articles, please let me know; I just set up another WikiProject yesterday, so it's fresh in my mind. :) With bright hopes, Willow 08:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I love your name, "Calliopejen", and calliopes in general. Is there a story behind it?

Thoughts on Naomi Campbell pics

I bet the blurry one is legitimately CC-licensed. From the rest of the pictures, it looks like he went to this event and sat pretty far away. I imagine he downloaded some professional photos (including the good naomi campbell one) and stuck them in the flickr set to let other people know what was going on... asking on flickr would probably be a good solution. Calliopejen 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense... I guess I was too naive... :( --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rochas, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 16:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Rochas

Hello - I just wanted to let you know that I enjoyed the Rochas article you created. Although I'm generally an ignoramus when it comes to fashion, I read the article about Theyskens in the NYT magazine when it was published and thought it was fascinating. It was interesting to read the latest details in your well-crafted article. Thanks for bringing this subject onto Wikipedia! Venicemenace 16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jen :)

Hi Jen. I was very naïve about Wikipedia when I wrote my article ‘Fashion victim’, which was my first ever attempt. My friend Kally and I had a lot of fun exploring how to define the concept, and putting our ideas together, with no notion of how to write an article to comply with Wikipedia requirements. My other friends Mike and David helped me work the computer bits and we were really pleased with the result. I was very upset at first when it was nominated for deletion but I accepted the criticism with good grace; by the end I would have deleted it myself if I could have.

It was my first article… and it was such a horrible experience, I have vowed that it will also be my last, so regrettably I won’t be participating in wikiprojects. I’m only 17 and I believe my destiny lies elsewhere. Reading the criticisms, I was compelled to educate myself about what Wikipedia is NOT - according to its own declared policy (with which, by the way, after due consideration, I wholly agree). An encyclopædia is NOT a place for original thought or creativity. Not at any meaningful level; and since if I am anything at all, I am creative, it’s not a place for me.

Kally is calling me away now to stop wasting my time and get off the computer. We have work to do. All the best with your project; success and all good things to you in your life.

S.

--Keygrippa 07:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Twiggy revert of my edits

Nice. So you're putting links back in that violate WP:RS as you can't put fan sites on biographies or any other WP page, putting back in unecyclopedic verbage, unecyclopedic formatting, etc. It's all yours, you're obivously not interested in meeting wikipedia standards and I'm not interesting in edit wars with people who are willing to violate WP rules and revert edits with no justiification. Piperdown 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your AWB Edit of Fashion Category

Hi Jen, I noted that you recently made several dozen edits to various articles that had fashion as a category. I'm a little confused about your criteria for removing some category links and keeping others. For instance, you decided that Vera Wang and Karl Lagerfeld do not qualify under the category (and they really do not fit under your recently added clothing brands either), but Giorgio Armani and Salvatore Ferragamo remain. And there are many, many others that you left in including Jodi Gordon, that probably do not deserve to be at the highest level of the category.

I understand that you are trying to improve the focus of the fashion category, but your tool was very blunt and somewhat indiscriminate. You didn't even come close to finishing the job. I think that if you're going to take an battle ax to links, you need to also do the most important part - replace the links you eliminated another to with the proper fashion sub-category. I recognize that's a harder job than using the software, but at least you are improving things along the way. Mattnad 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply to my talk page. Here's where I'm a bit lost in what the outcome may look like vs. the purpose of having a category. For starters, what's your vision for what should remain at the top level of the Fashion Category Page? Is it just sets of sub-categories, plus a few articles with meta-category explanations of things like, "Clothing Fashion", "Architectural Fashion", "Music Fashion", which then have "See Also" links in the articles to the next level of category?

Then, I'm wondering about how can people learn that an article is contained in the broader "Fashion" Category, and also part of a sub category. The way Wikipedia links one page to another doesn't necessarily include all of the interconnections. For example, Vera Wang is now in the "American Fashion Designers" (sub)category, but there's no indication on her article that it's a subset of "Fashion." Likewise, "American Fashion Designers" has no category link to "Fashion." One has to do a lot of clicking to see that there's a higher level connection to the "Fashion" category.

So perhaps the best way is to allow people to cross-link between the highest level "Fashion", and a more precise sub-category. This dual approach lets readers access the category from the top down, and bottom up. If "Fashion" had a well-defined and agreed upon taxonomy like the biological sciences, then it would be simple to to have small categories linked to bigger categories. The problem, as I see it, is that Fashion is not well defined as a category, and the structure could change. So here's an alternative: since the "Fashion" category page is already organized so that people first see the categories, and then the articles, it's not the end of the world to have a large population of articles at the end. I'm just concerned we might be losing utility by cutting things up too much.

Maybe you could build in a better road-map on the page, and also propose a structure at the top of the category (and I recommend using the discussion page first and ask for opinions). Right now, the category explanation is a lot broader than what's there now. This seems to be mostly about Clothing Fashion. Maybe that's the best approach for this page/category. Mattnad 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jen, to help you along, I added a notification on the category page alerting people to the need for further discussion. I think what you'd like to do is great idea, albeit one that will require quite a bit of work. There may be other pages dedicated to notifying the broader editor community of the request you made on the discussion page. If you can find a way to advertise the need, you'll get the benefit of a broader opinion base, guidance, and maybe some help with the execution. I'll personally give your request some more thought and then add my 2 cents to the discussion page. Mattnad 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Repetive but necessary edits

Especially when you're starting a project. Get yourself AutoWikiBrowser for that sort of thing. It's worth it. Daniel Case 06:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fashion week

I really like what you've done to this article. Keep up the good work. --David Shankbone 14:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cappuccio

On 31 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cappuccio, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 16:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For the hard work involved in organizing the once-disheveled Category:Fashion and setting up WikiProject Fashion. Daniel Case 05:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		And here's another barnstar for your article Cappuccio. That's how articles should look and it's an interesting subject. I hope you will take the time to make the article for the headwear that is redlinked in there. Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

List of fashion photographers

Hey Calliopejen, why did you send that article to AfD without responding to my discussion on the talk page? TheMindsEye 17:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits of Binky

Calliopejen, I quite appreciate your heroic efforts to improve the Binky article; it reads much better! The sources and links are cited properly at last!. And thanks so much for posting the "shoe" photograph! I've been looking for that one! Well done! Mang 06:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)