Thanks for offering to do that. I find that real life has suddenly become a priority, but hope to get to those references as well within the next week or so. I'm happy to see so much good work done on the article so quickly. Oberonfitch (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent a half hour looking for something to bolster the DL claim. Of course, as seems to happen frequently, I got into a circular loop of SSCS propaganda and Wiki quotes. I think that it needs to be reworded. Thanks for your note. Oberonfitch (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the article on Ansel Adams, you recently replaced a non-free image with J. Malcolm Greany's Ansel Adams and Camera on the basis that the latter image is in the public domain. How did you determine that this image is a work of the U.S. government? JeffConrad (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I obtained this particular image from a Yosemite National Park website, whis is a unit of the National Park Service, which is a subdivision of the U. S. Department of the Interior. I listed the specific web page in the image file on Wikimedia. The original photo caption reads "Ansel Adams shown as pictured in the 1950 Yosemite Field School yearbook and in “Yosemite Nature Notes” in January 1952." I researched the photographer J. Malcolm Greany and learned that he worked for the U.S. Fish and Widlife Service in Alaska, and had been on a trip with Ansel Adams near Juneau, Alaska, probably in 1947. A similar photo from that trip, almost certainly taken during the same photo shoot, appears on a University of California - Berkeley website. Adams is wearing what appears to be the same clothing, using the same camera, and what looks like the same hillside is behind him, though that photo was taken from a different angle. This is the evidence I used to conclude that this Yosemite website image, which is probably 63 years old, is in the public domain. Your feedback is welcomed. Cullen328 (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, I'm not sure any two Wikipedia editors have the same take on the distinction between Notes and References. The latter usually means the works actually consulted in writing the article, preferably with inline citations that include page numbers. The former seems to mean different things in different articles. Sometimes, as in the Adams article, they're used for a combination of discursive footnotes and short footnotes with page citations. Some editors even put discursive footnotes in a separate section, and group them using the group= parameter for the <ref> tag. For short articles, many editors just put full citations inside <ref>...</ref> tags for inline citations, and a <references/> tag or the {{reflist}} template in a References section. This doesn't work so well when a work is cited several times, perhaps each with a different page number. For this, short foonotes are usually a better choice. Another editor changed this article to use the {{Sfn}} template, which works to much the same effect, but creates a hyperlink to the full citation. With this approach, the <ref> tag isn't needed—just use the template. For an example in the Adams article, see the {{Sfn |Adams|1985| p = 76}} citation near the beginning of the Career section. Note that in the References section, the citation templates need to include the ref=harv parameter to create the target for the hyperlink. The “harv” comes from Harvard referencing, which is apparently what the Brits call parenthetical referencing. In effect, the short footnotes work to the same effect as parenthetical referencing, except that they're doubly indirect. I usually use author-date parenthetical referencing, but the citations take up a lot of space when there are as many as there are (and need to be) in the Adams article. And in any event, the existing references used a different style, and the WP:MOS dictates that the original style be followed unless there is a consensus to change it.
One school of thought holds that short footnotes are needed only if a work is cited more than once. The result is that some full citations are in a nice alphabetized list in the References section, while others are scattered throughout the Notes, which seems an inconsistent mess. And of course, this approach presupposes that an additional citation won't be added later; if a second citation is needed, things need to be moved around. Having done this cleanup a short time ago in the Adams article, I can assure you that it's much easier to put the citations and refs where wanted in the first place. Even with relatively few citations to change, I was relieved that I managed to do it without causing any major damage.
I think I understand, but I guess I will have to study the relevant sections in the Adams article in order to understand how to code new references and how to create the notes properly. Cullen328 (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Whoa Nellie Deli, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Gert7 (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gert7, I appreciate you noticing the article I wrote last night, but am not sure why you proposed Whoa Nellie Deli for speedy deletion, as the article I wrote included no promotional material from the restaurant itself or even paraphrases of such material. Instead, I used neutral language and relied on quotations from 7 relaible sources to establish notability. Those included the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times and the San Diego Union-Tribune. These aren't just home town blurbs. Quoting relaible sources is not advertising. I also quoted national magazines like Gourmet and The Atlantic. As a point of fact, I have no connection with the restaurant other than as a satisfied customer. Did you actually read the article and look at the references that clearly establish notability? Fortunately, someone else disagreed with your proposal and removed the flag. I am sure that you acted in good faith but am curious as to your reasoning. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this crisis has passed, but as Ettamogah Pub has been on wiki for years, I think this is comparable, and even more unique. I mean, if we have an article on, say, Antoine's, we need balance, right? ;-) Now, the local Mexican place in my town that's connected to a gas station is also tasty, but not yet notable when compared to this! Perhaps they can take inspiration..LOL!. Montanabw(talk)04:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, I have been digging around in the packing and guiding articles and have arrived at the conclusion that the whole area is an ungodly mess of stubs, starts and disorganization! My own interest and time is a bit limited to spearhead an improvement drive, but I'd be glad to weigh in and help as I can on any bright ideas for organizing it all (such as making outfitter into a disambiguation page for all the different kinds and a new article for the horse-packing guide variant...). Montanabw(talk)04:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just launching Maurice Sugar right now, working off Johnson's biography as the main source. If you'd like to help wale away at it, feel free. I'm not finding a death date, for one thing — and my interest is primarily in the early years, so if you've got any interest in the later period, maybe I can take care of up to 1920 or something and you can work on the later phase.
If you'd like to email me directly, feel free: MutantPop@aol.com
I made a comment partially directed at you on Talk:Ahmed Yassin, that I think got lost due to the discussion taking on a life of its own. Do you think I could press you for an answer?
In an an attempt to build consensus (and get this issue over with), I will narrow my opinion to Support Option 1, cropped as a portrait of the subject. Showing the wheelchair is OK with me. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to call me Jim, which is my real name. I should let you know that my opinion on the appearance of disabled people is affected by the fact that I have a 20 year old son with moderate disabilities. He has classmates with severe disabilities, so I've had more chances than most people to get beyond the appearance issues. As I said on the talk page, I think the 3 options are all better than the image now used, which I think shows the man's appearance at its worst. People with severe vision problems often look "googly eyed" which isn't a very neutral term. He was, by definition, sickly. So photo 1 isn't my favorite but I am trying to build consensus for improvement. I didn't think your question was directed specifically at me, and the conversation was moving fast. That's why I didn't respond earlier. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jim,
1) Please accept my apologies for the use of the term "googly eyed". You were understating it when you said that it "isn't a very neutral term". It is in fact a terribly insensitive term, and was used too lightly. I have nothing but the greatest respect for people living w/ disabilities and those who help them.
2) I think there are a lot of biographical pages about politicians/important figures who were sick and/or disabled at some point in thier life. I think in general, most images offered for such people are usually respectful in that they don't press the point that person was sick and/or disabled. It strikes me that option 1 from Talk:Ahmed Yassin does make him appear rather sickly and decrepit. Option 3 on the other hand shows he is disabled, but makes him look somewhat more stately.
Apology accepted and not really needed because it wasn't in main space. Option 1 is not my personal favorite but I am willing to make concessions to get consensus for changing the current one. I am inexperienced with these debates and surprised how hard it is to move forward. Your opinion is valid. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat understand but I guess I would understand better if the issue had clear substance favoring one side or the other. I will probably move on soon to better things (as defined by me). Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My take on it is that Avi (a typically pro-Israeli editor) is looking to represent Yassin (a sworn enemy of Israel) in an aestheticly unpleasing light. NickCT (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see the benefit of portraying your enemies as ridiculous? Have you ever seen propaganda posters? Don't they are portray the enemy in comical characticture?
Excellent point, but the guy has been dead 6 years. This isn't 1942 and he isn't Tojo. As I noted yesterday, the lead photos of Hitler and Stalin et al are neutral. Cullen328 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not too sure I understand the counter point. Hamas is very much alive. Yassin was the founder of Hamas. Is it not reasonable to assume that if I wanted to discredit Hamas I might attempt to make its founder look silly? NickCT (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since our last exchange, I noticed that the same image is used in the Hamas article. I read a bit of that article's talk page. I understand your point better now. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim, Just wondering whether you might have any info on James Eccles, about whom I've just started a page. He seems to have done a fair bit in the Rockies. I don't have any books on US mountaineering, whilst I imagine that you have quite a few. Any new info gratefully received. Best wishes, Ericoides08:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. My detailed knowledge is about California and the Sierra Nevada. I've never climbed in Wyoming which is a very long 2 day drive from where I live (but would love to). The best overall survey of U.S. mountaineering history I own doesn't mention Eccles. By the way, that book, Climbing in North America, was written in 1976 by a British climber/author, Chris Jones.
Back to Eccles. Available online is a book published by the National Park Service called Grand Teton NP: A Place Called Jackson Hole. Chapter 16 by Reynold G. Jackson is called "Park of the Matterhorns". The whole chapter is fascinating and there is a lengthy paragraph about Eccles' attempt. I Googled "james eccles grand teton" and it was #2 right after your article.
I am researching and replying on a smart phone which is great but a bit awkward. I will be back at my computer and book collection in about 12 hours and will scout around more then. Cullen328 (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
C. Douglas Milner describes Eccles as a climber of "exceptional calibre" and his guides as "the finest that Chamonix could provide at that time" in Mont Blanc and the Aguilles, p. 74, 1955, Robert Hale Limited, London. My copy has no ISBN. Cullen328 (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Milner says Eccles failed in an attempt on the Peutery ridge on July 28, 1877, but tried again two days later, succeeding in a very fast time. He also describes Eccles failing an attempt in 1875, intimidated by the Innominata face. Back in London, while walking down the Strand, he saw a telephoto showing Mont Blanc and that amphitheater taken from Crammont displayed in a shop window. This photo revealed the best exit from the amphitheater, by the couloir to the Peutery ridge. Milner implies that photo was the key to success of the climb. All on page 75. Cullen328 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re Eckenstein, I think there's something in a Winthrop Young biography I have, as well as a Younghusband biog. Plus a passage in Eric Newby's A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush (about the Eckenstein boulder in Snowdonia). I'll have a rummage tomorrow, it's late now. Crowley biogs have more, of course. Ericoides21:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In The Throne Room of the Mountain Gods by Galen Rowell is about K2 mountaineering, and has some very interesting information about Eckenstein (and Crowley as well). I am particularly interested in elaborating on his efforts to improve mountaineering equipment and techniques. Cullen328 (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of my books are still in storage but I found this (btw, JP means justice of the peace). "Early in 1907 Geoffrey was voted on the committee of the Climbers' Club, the club for Snowdonia climbers, and immediately he was in action. His Journal notes: "Made a brilliant (!) speech at their dinner, with Charles Trevelyan and Francis Acland as my guests, who also spoke. Helped to settle the Eckenstein-Abraham row over the Abrahams' North Wales book." Oscar Eckenstein was an impressive but odd man, one of the very few who could get along with "the great beast", Aleister Crowley. A railway engineer by profession, he was a veteran climber with an original and inventive mind, a pioneer of balance climbing and a pioneer, too, of the use of crampons on snow and ice. Like many of the Snowdonia climbers, he hated publicity, believing that their sport should remain private and exclusive. The Abraham brothers of Keswick, George and Ashley, had grown up in a very different tradition. They were professional photographers and took the view of their Lake District mentor, O. G. Jones, that climbing was such fun that everybody should be told about it and encouraged to have a go. In 1906 the brothers published a book, Rock Climbing in North Wales, crammed with accounts of adventures on the cliffs of Snowdonia and illustrated by their superb photographs. This would have been enough to upset Eckenstein but, compounding the offence, one passage in the book, [94] about an early attempt on the Devil's Kitchen, vividly described his assault on the crux wall and "pricipitate retreat". An incensed Eckenstein introduced a resolution at the Club's annual meeting, the exact terms of which have not been recorded. The tenor, however, is obvious. Ashley Abraham stood up to plead that he and his brother had intended no personal offence. Eckenstein was finally persuaded to withdraw his resolution." Hankinson, Alan (1995). Geoffrey Winthrop Young: Poet, Educator, Mountaineer, Hodder & Stoughton, 1995, pp. 93–4. In a later passage in the same book, Eleanor Slingsby (daughter of Cecil Slingsby), gives this brief portrait of OE. "I remember Eckenstein very well at the 1911 party, hammering things in the hall and smoking his awful pipe tobacco. He had a bushy beard at that time and was regarded as something of a prophet figure." (p. 119) On p. 233 Hankinson notes that OE, together with Farrar and Collie, had helped GWY with his book Mountain Craft. If you have the time/energy you could also trawl through some of these threads on UKC (eg the one entitled "Who was the Brit mountaineer?"). Ericoides09:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your work on OE is excellent, well done. If you have the time you could give more details on the OE-Abraham feud (the GWY above) after the sentence "though their relationship was not always smooth". For instance, "though their relationship was not always smooth, as may be in seen in the Eckenstein-Abraham row. This was caused by the publication of the Abrahams' North Wales guide in which Eckenstein was ... etc etc."; always nice to have specifics. This would then lead nicely into the North Wales material that follows. I'm afraid I don't know much about that period of the AC, although I know Whymper had trouble with the AC because he was considered a "swell" (a class distinction, I think). There is an excellent collection of essays called Mirrors in the Cliffs (ed Perrin) which, among many other good things, describes this period; many decades later, as the Edward Lisle Strutt article says, "... 1927–37, these being the years – according to Alan Hankinson – in which 'the Alpine Club [...] had declined into a stuffy, snobbish, backward-looking institution. Its dominant figure was Colonel E. L. Strutt [...] for many years the autocratic and outspoken editor of the Alpine Journal. His views were rigid and intolerant. The only decent and honourable way to climb was the way in which he had climbed as a young man. Crampons were inadmissible; pitons anathema." Ericoides07:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and I agree that the conflict with the Abrahams brothers is illuminating. Perhaps a case where OE was the conservative one - opposing guidebooks especially if one's own accomplishnents were criticized a bit. I'm also interested in mountain photographers such as the brothers. I wrote Tom Frost and improving Ansel Adams is an ongoing effort. Cullen328 (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you might be right. Perhaps he asked for a serviette rather than a napkin. Most of what I know about California comes either from the Grateful Dead or Curb Your Enthusiasm. The only time I visited I was 6 years old. Ericoides12:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have made a start on this and will expand it further as and when I have time. Normally I focus on the mountains of Germany and Austria rather than people, but this looks quite interesting. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coal is a dirty energy source, but what are the men and women that produce coal supposed to do for work if it is fased out? There arent many jobs in our coal mining areas, and coal is a source of income that pays good so we can provide for our families. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eb17816 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our job here on Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia from a neutral point of view, backed up by verifiable references. Your personal opinions simply don't belong in articles. Cullen328 (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any links or references regarding "T. M. Herbert" or "TM Herbert" in the article, and assumed it was a common violation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If you can document that it should be "TM Herbert", have at it and change it, but note the peculiar lack of punctuation with an embedded comment so it doesn't get changed again needlessly. —QuicksilverT@05:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment posted here in response to your message at the Village Pump because second-class netizens can't post there.)
Back when I still had an account, I got these automated welcome messages consistently once every three or four months. They weren't fully automated, because someone had to decide I was new and come template my talk page (honestly, after nine months and three messages, you start to view these things as juvenile insults--"Welcome, User!" for the fourth time? Really, now...), but they were automatically generated and that's what counts.
An automatic message like that will never look friendly to anyone even remotely familiar with the modern era. We're used to dismissing out of hand any kindness bestowed by a machine because we know that machines have no feelings and, more often than not on the 'Net, are programmed to lie to us.
The only "Welcome, User!" message I ever received that meant anything was a very short one, hand-typed, by another user. Even though an initial, fully-automated message that arrives the moment an account is created would avoid the suspicion born by those later, semi-automatic messages ("Is he serious? I've been doing this for two years. Jackass."), it would still be a message from a heartless machine that honestly just isn't happy to have you here--because, really, it can't feel happiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have Chris Jones' book anymore, so I am unable to check the pages 275-276 which you cited, to see if it is one of his mistakes, or if it is a misinterpretation. Thanks for explaning the revert, though.
The party which did the second ascent of the Nose in September 1960 was these 4 people:
Royal Robbins, Tom Frost, Joe Fitschen, and Chuck Pratt.
There is actually a commemoration of this event this weekend in Yosemite.
Another:
Royal Robbins - Spirit of the Age, Pat Ament, p.38-49.
non-primary reference:
Fifty Classic Climbs of North America, Steve Roper, Allen Steck, p.266.
Another:
Beyond the Vertical, Layton Kor, p.148.
Yvon Chouinard, Warren Harding, Janie Taylor and about 20 other people did hike to the top to meet the team of 4.
Yvon Chouinard and Dennis Hennek did the 10th ascent of the Nose in 1967 - that was his first time up the Nose, but not his first time up El Capitan. Here is a list of the first 17 ascents:
1- 1958 Warren Harding, Wayne Merry, & George Whitmore
2- 1960 Royal Robbins, Joe Fitschen, Chuck Pratt, & Tom Frost, seven days
3- 1963 Steve Roper, Layton Kor, & Glen Denny, three and a quarter days.
4- 1965 Gary Colliver, Richard McCracken, & John Evans
5- 1966 Dave Dornan, Dick Williams & Ants Leemets
6- 1966 Galen Rowell & Tom Fender
7- 1966 Jacques Dupont & Andre Gaunt, 6 days
8- 1967 Ken Boche & Don Lauria, 7 days
9- 1967 Jim Madsen & Kim Schmitz, 3 days
10- 1967 Dennis Hennek and Yvon Chouinard, 3 Days
11- 1967 Pat Ament & Tom Ruitch,
12- 1967 Don McPherson & Ron Burgner
13- 1968 Jim Logan & Wayne Goss
14- 1968 Jose Luis Fonrouge (Argentina) & Rick Sylvester
15- 1968 Jim Bridwell & Bill Stanton
16- 1968 Mick Burke & Rob Wood
17- 1968 Jim Madsen (again) & Mike Covington
see the March 6, 2010 post by BooDawg (Ken Boche) here:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=712787&tn=0
I believe Yvon also did the first "clean" (without using a hammer) ascent of the Nose in 1973 with Bruce Carson.
Hi Cullen, note that I took a stab at seeing if the wikigods will accept fair use portraits of the various Varians, and to that end, uploaded some images of the brothers (taken by Ansel Adams, no less) to Varian Associates. I'd be glad to help if I can. I also dribbled some stuff into the Ansel Adams article (which I think you worked on too?) Anyway, you may want to check out the notes I have on Russell and Sigurd at User:Montanabw/Sandbox 2, mostly copy and paste from some other sources, but the URLs are there with the excerpts I thought relevant. The timeline on the history of Silicon Valley is significant, and the Hammond book on Ansel Adams (sourced in the John Varian article) has stuff on Russell. My stake in all of the above is that I created the article Sheila Varian, their niece, the horse breeder. Russell's wife Dorothy helped bankroll the horse ranch in its early years. It's sort of taken off from there. Fascinating family. Montanabw(talk)00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The date, length and hook of the expanded article of Harry Yount has been verified. However, the image presently at Commons does not match the NPS source you originally specified. Do you know where the current image came from? KimChee (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original image was uploaded to Commons back in 2006, long before I got involved. While working on researching Yount in recent weeks, I was searching for a better quality version of the image. The best I found was part of Google's archive of LIFE magazines photos. Since it is a 19th century image, I concluded that it is in the public domain, as did the original uploader. I uploaded the highest resolution version I could find, but it had a LIFE watermark. I then uploaded a somewhat lower resolution version from LIFE, without the watermark, but still better than the NPS version. I thought I had properly updated the Commons data, but have gone back and made sure that it shows LIFE's archive as the intermediate source. The photo, of course, was taken long before LIFE magazine was founded. By the way, it isn't accurate to say that the photo was taken by a NPS employee, as it was taken long before the NPS was founded. I believe that it was taken by a photographer working for the Hayden Survey in the 1870s. That survey was funded by the U.S. Department of the Interior, so the photo is almost certainly a work of the U.S. government. However, I haven't been able to verify the exact origins of the photo. Cullen328 (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To confirm PD status for DYK usage, it would help to determine whether the photo had been published before 1923 or if it had in fact been part of the Hayden Survey. The date is in a gray area where it is uncertain whether an unknown photographer would have been dead for at least 70 years. Here is a book that states that William Henry Jackson had taken at least one of the photos of Yount during the Hayden survey (that image from the USGS appears to be clear to use). KimChee (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this iconic portrait is not by Jackson, though the distance shot of Yount in mountain scenery is by Jackson. The portrait is, however, by another employee of the Department of the Interior.
The earliest publication date for this photo that I can verify is 1928, in the book, "Oh, Ranger!" by Albright and Taylor, which is reference 1 in the Wikipedia article. I own a copy of the 2nd edition printed in 1929, but unfortunately it does not have any photo credits - just a brief caption.
The best information I can find about the source of the photo is in the frontispiece of the following book, which I found on Google Books:
National Park Service Uniforms: In Search of an Identity, 1872-1920
Workman writes, "Photograph was taken by William Henry Holmes while both were employed on the Ferdinand Vandeveer Hayden geological survey in 1873, Yount as guide and Holmes as illustrator. William Henry Jackson was the official photographer, but apparently Holmes also dabbled in this medium. NPSHPC - William Henry Holmes photo HFC/91-16"
The photo is described in detail on page 1 of the book, and descriptions of other photos of Yount follow.
Suggested ALT1: ... that Harry Yount(pictured) killed 70 antelope in one day during a hunting competition, but was ashamed because "it went against his heart to kill so many innocent creatures just for the glory"? KimChee (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 17 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harry Yount, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Harry Yount(pictured) killed 70 antelope in one day during a hunting competition, but was ashamed because "it went against his heart to kill so many innocent creatures just for the glory"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for the comment on the photo. I think the license should be OK now. I put a similar picture of Dick McGowan up on his article. Jack-z (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
