Archives
DYK: Giovanni Faber
--PFHLai (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
ShamanDhia page
Thank you for your input regarding my page. If it still reads like a working artists resume, I think I have time to edit, still. The narrative is the weakest part because I have been struggling with the code/references this week. (Its way better than it was a week ago.) I am notable because I am a published, exhibiting, first generation conceptual digital media artist, (DigiratiXR) and the reference to the psychic stuff is an important element in my artwork. My work on the internet deals with metaphysics and telematic communications. I'll try another re-write - you're seeing it now for the first time, but its come a long way in 5 days, and I want to keep trying to make it better/ok until it gets accepted or deleted. I'm just getting to know how to navigate the system now...sort of addicting. Thanks again,161.38.223.246 (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia Try reading again today, and comment on edits/improvements - ppl are coaching me to try to keep the article - using AfD to improve the quality of the articlethe Hitochi Princess (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia
Article importance scale for WikiProject Equine
Hello. WikiProject Equine is discussing an article importance scale here. Your POV would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
ATN
Hi.
So, show me the place in this article where you have seen an advertisiment. Have you read it? There is no adver. at all! I with Jimfbleak discussed this article and removed all the unnecessary.
About the photos. All the sites with night vision optics (different manufactuters, not only ATN optics) have the same photos! These photos were taken from russian site. You can see link to it in the bottom of the article.
Please reconsider your decision. Thanks.
--YGelfman (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
RE: InternetHero
Hi. The main thing is to try and get the other editor involved in discussion. I can see that you are trying that, and I hope that it works. Asking for sources is key and the more that you can keep the discussion focused on them the better. Aside from that, the best advice can really be found at WP:DISPUTE. I would suggest that you read that and hopefully it will give you a good framework to proceed. Even though it can tak some time, it is best to stick to this process. Hope that is of some help. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I understand, but please remember that there are lots of avenues open to you even when dealing with an editor who refuses to discuss or compromise. It is not simply that you, on your own, have to get another editor to agree. If, as you say, the other editor is getting blocked, then the community is acting and the processes are working. It would be great if you could continue working within the processes rather than getting involved in edit warring yourself. If you continue to follow the processes described in WP:DISPUTE you really will get this resolved, even though it may seem to take some time. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, my "refusal" to discuss has somehow led me to the discussion page I provided references (from the NY Times I might add), and very well thought-out arguements relating to why Al-Haytham should be mentioned. All I wasnted to do was share information... It seems I can't do that without an administrator though... Even they agree with me indicating tht I think they don't like Muslims. I made a mention to why the Europeans don't know people like Al-Haytham but it was redirected at me for "being POV". They have no clue what I am talking about half the time. They just like screwing around with me. Don't worry, the admins seems to side with me anyway. InternetHero (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Honest Grammar changes
Dude, I worked a lot on that. I made a few mistake like "lenses that use mirrors", but I didn't change any positions at all: this was merely a grammar edit (that actually took some 2 hours). I hope you will reconsider. InternetHero (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion needed on the Talk:telescope's talk-page
Hi. Could you give your opinion on the new section from that talk-page? InternetHero (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This edit accuses us of racism, and I have posted a Wikiquette alert to request an outside analysis. It seems a little bit silly given that I arrived at that page to resolve a dispute, but hope that I am socially savvy enough to recognize when all of my words are being binned in a fight rather than being read in a discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- A request for comment on user conduct has been filed regarding this issue at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InternetHero. Your participation there would be appreciated. - DigitalC (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
SKYGAZING exists
I detest your efforts with skygazing. You seem to have a history of fighting well meaning wikipedians. For the record i gave up bothering in this space due to behaviour such as this, its absurd and ridiculous given the clear and easily verifiable truth. The best alternative would be to fix and upgrade the articles but thats not the agenda for many wikipedians. It seems like there is a concerted effort out there to undo everything i ever did to wikipedia, and while that may not be true, there is a great deal of this deletion activity. There are so many convoluted and complex rules that basically anyone can fight under a variety of platforms and win, because most of us simply cant be bothered fighting anymore. The reality doesn't seem to matter, they just want to have whatever their target is for the day removed, ie winning is everything. Discussion and argument seems futile, if it exists at all in many cases, and so I have decided that pragmatism is to move on with more important contributions to the world's net information; and protect it behind my own domains.
- There IS such a thing as 'Skygazing' or 'Sky-gazing' and its NOT exclusive to astronomy, its a 24/7 process practised for millenia by every civilisation, and by myself every day!! I have a site www.sky.org.nz SKY org that is dedicated to such behaviour. I recently screened 5 movies of the pure sky lasting 24 hours in one of our country's most important art galleries, the Dunedin Public Art Gallery, with world famous composer Warwick Blair, providing the music also for 24 hours. So in truth the audience were in fact sky-gazing, on 5 movie screens. My movie opens at our National Film Archive here in our capital city of Wellington NZ in 3 weeks time, and runs for a month, and also runs as a 6 screen version next year for the Auckland Fringe Festival of the Arts at the most prestigous venue, MIC Toi Rerehiko Galatos... We previewed the work at Auckland University's Gus Fisher Gallery in april..
The answer may be for me to name a project 'Skygazing' sometime and have that in a notable gallery. I am considering that approach with some other deleted articles, due to my firm conviction that they are part of real human life and our national and international history. Truth is more than a dictionary of english words.
- The Pacific migrations RELIED on 24/7 SKYGAZING to navigate to my country centuries ago, and the art is undergoing a very strong resurgence, as evidenced in many publications. See the award winning best designed book Astronomy Aotearoa Astronomy Aotearoa that i contributed sky images to. my user name is paul moss.. 125.236.132.248 (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC) 125.236.132.248 (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed your many objections on the relevant talk pages, and also your continualy missing the point: you may want to see Wikipedia:Citing sources - the place where Skygazing fell flat as far as a Wikipedia article. And as you can see, most other editors thought the same thing. Since you are flaming me from an anonymous IP I assume you ran into problem re: your conduct on Wikipedia? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Jen Delyth page
Hello. You have recently added a "notability" criticism on the Jen Delyth page, noting that the page is supposed to be about a person not a symbol.
This page went through rigorous tests, and it was ultimately decided that the notability was better established through focussing on the contribution made by this artist (in this case an extremly well known symbol - as any search on the internet under "celtic tree of life" will show - by this celtic artist. (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=celtic+tree+of+life&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)
This decision was made by the community, and was upheld by the community until now.
(tHe original page was focussing on the celtic artist herself. It would be a lot of work to go back to that, after all the work done to create this page, and show clearly the notability of this celtic artist.) Please also google "celtic artist" and note Jen Delyth is #2 position. (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=celtic+artist&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)
You may not be familiar with the Celtic Art genre. But Jen Delyth is perhaps the most well known Celtic artist in this country, working today.
So could you give this another review please? ITs frustrating to have to keep going back and forth. And the article was tested by the community and decided to pass muster, even by several critics initally of the page.
THe need for citation in claiming the symbol has become "iconographic", is covered in the article. This image has become part of the contemporary celtic art lexicon vocabulary. Searches on the internet show clearly the widespread use of this design, which was created entirely by this artist Jen Delyth (Library of Congress number for artwork filing is given in article).. So this is not just a "claim". FYI, this image is to be featured in an upcoming ABC special - makeover weddings. It is widely published, and widely used, and known in the Celtic community.
thanks, Scott Silverberg.SSilverberg (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I have taken a look at the page per your request. The article still needs alot of work. I did a small cleanup of article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style, You may want to read that guideline. The article still has problems:
- -The summery makes claims that the "Celtic Tree of Life design[2] (has) become an iconographic symbol". This is not backed up by a reliable source.
- -There still is no valid claim or reference as to whether this person is notable. re: The Celtic Tree of Life - any artist can make a drawing and copyright it, this does not mean it is notable. The only other activity seems to be illustration and exhibit in commercial art exhibits.This seems to fall short of Wikipedia:Notability (people) which looks for notable "permanent collections of several notable galleries (not commercial) or museums", or "person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
- - For a supposed biography the article has very little biographical information.
- You may want to expand the article based on my minor edits and try to make it less of a resume and more of a biography citing reliable sources. If this person is a media celeberty than you may want to cite that.
- hope this helps Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Michael Parkes Page
Please do not delete the valid references from the Parkes page again. I am restoring your deletions. If you have some reason for this, please express it on the Parkes Talk Page. --72.75.8.221 (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)--Zeamays (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Refs were not valid and were removed for mostly WP:SPAM reasons. Steltman Galleries falls under ref-spam WP:SPAM, and is a questionable source since it is promotional in nature WP:QS. The Avalon Gallery Carmel link you keep restoring is flat out linkspam WP:SPAM. If this artist is notable as you claim then there should be lots of references you can use that are not questionable. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Your repeated deletion of valid references constitutes vandalism. Please refrain from this unreasonable activity. I provided additional references and library holding, which you ignored. --Zeamays (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to totally misunderstand WP:V and WP:CREATIVE. Notability is established by what other people say about an artist, not what they say about them selves. What libraries hold his books is not notability, we need books by other people about him, not books by people who hold a commercial relationship with him or books he has published himself. The burden of proof lies with you being in the "advocate" for this article WP:BURDEN. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The article is lacking that. I have actually added sources that help in that matter but since there does not seem to be any major critical comment on this artist he will need "multiple independent sources (to) prove notability". Continually removing the NOTABILITY tag is counterproductive since it is there to let other editors know about the problem and maybe fix it. You should refrain from doing that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Fountains, Please see my response on the Parkes talk page. Before you accuse other editors of not understanding a policy, you might consider reading it. --Zeamays (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Have responded as per where you may be misunderstanding it[[1] Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
History section of telescope
Hi!
It appears we have reached a philosophical impasse. I think that a history, even a short one, should contain the how and why, and relations to adjoining fields, even at the cost of some redundancy. I believe you think it should adhere more to the 'what happened' with links to more detailed sources. Both are defendable strategies, so perhaps it would be good to get the opinion of others, since we don't seem to be converging. I took the liberty of adding both, side by side, to the talk page, with a pointer in the history section, and ask for opinions. Also, I'd propose to use your history on odd days, and mine on even days, to even out the exposure. I hope this is OK with you, LouScheffer (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I added a request for comments to the talk page. I hope we can get some new perspectives, LouScheffer (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Just an FYI, This discussion is already on-going at Talk:Telescope. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Articles on 'Islamic' inventions
Hello, I saw you were engaged at one time about the sense or nonsense of the article series which has been created in recent times. Now the issue is up again. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inventions_in_the_modern_Islamic_world Regards
Checkuser
I've reviewed your sockpuppetry report since you asked me to comment on it. I've spelt out my conclusions there but in summary I agree in respect of the anonymous IPs but am unconvinced as to the users. A proper checkuser would show what IP's they were using and could resolve it. I've also made a few comments on talk:Dobsonian telescope: basically a plea for peace and balance to be restored. The number of edits to that article has gone through the roof in the last couple of days and I think people are losing a sense of perspective. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC).
- ty, comment left at Dobsonian. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Your note
Hi FoBM, that article is a very frequent target of vandalism, and I only added move protection. This would prevent renaming the article to a new name (e.g. profanity) without admin involvement. This does not affect the content at all. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Aerial telescope
Orlady (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
You tagged this page; can you say why? I’ve responded on the talk page. Swanny18 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please see that article's talk page for some (very major) problems cited. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I’ve replied on the talk page, but wanted to ask you: You’ve edited on a range of astronomy related pages; are you an astronomer? If so, do you belong to an Astronomical Society? If the answer is yes, I find it hard to believe you are unfamiliar with the term or the concept; does it not have a "Sidewalk" group?
- I'm wondering what your intentions are: Do you want to build a case to delete this article? Or do you feel there are better ways of saying some things? What do you have in mind? Swanny18 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Am I an astronomer? Do I belong to an Astronomical Society? Am I unfamiliar with the term or the concept? errrr....... other than the fact that I haul around some very big telescopes to my astronomical society's public outings..... does it mater? Being an expert on the subject does not matter when editing an article. And creating an article from your own knowledge of the subject is actually discouraged (please read WP:OR). The article in question should have clear references that I or any editor can check to see if it fits Wikipedia's criteria for an encyclopedic article. What do I have in mind? Making sure the article fits Wikipedia's criteria for an encyclopedic article (i.e. making sure it is not a bunch of BS off the top of someones head). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- The reason I asked if you were an astronomer is that, if you were, you ought to be familiar with the subject; and it matters, because your comments suggest you have an axe to grind here; have you?
- I don’t have any interest in what’s on this page ( I didn’t write it) but I am interested in seeing it continue.
- If there are any statements you feel need changing, then say so; or change them. If you think it needs more sources, then add them. But if you are trying to build a case to delete this page I can’t say I’d be happy about that. Swanny18 (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- The reason I asked if you were an astronomer is that, if you were, you ought to be familiar with the subject; and it matters, because your comments suggest you have an axe to grind here; have you?
- Am I an astronomer? Do I belong to an Astronomical Society? Am I unfamiliar with the term or the concept? errrr....... other than the fact that I haul around some very big telescopes to my astronomical society's public outings..... does it mater? Being an expert on the subject does not matter when editing an article. And creating an article from your own knowledge of the subject is actually discouraged (please read WP:OR). The article in question should have clear references that I or any editor can check to see if it fits Wikipedia's criteria for an encyclopedic article. What do I have in mind? Making sure the article fits Wikipedia's criteria for an encyclopedic article (i.e. making sure it is not a bunch of BS off the top of someones head). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I’ve replied on the talk page, but wanted to ask you: You’ve edited on a range of astronomy related pages; are you an astronomer? If so, do you belong to an Astronomical Society? If the answer is yes, I find it hard to believe you are unfamiliar with the term or the concept; does it not have a "Sidewalk" group?
- If you are trying to make a case for a Wikipedia article based on the merit that "you" think it should exist, or that editing an articles to make it more encyclopedic is "having an axe to grind", then you have missed several Wikipedia guidelines and policy pages along the way. I would suggest starting with WP:ENC, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)