User talk:Fakedeeps

Please review/criticize this InfoBox draft for Roger Penrose

 * Do you miss any information? Do you think some information is trivial?
 * Does style seems overpromotional? WP:BLP
 * Should InfoBox be smaller/larger/wider/taller?
 * Is data arrangement intuitive? WP:LEADIMAGE
 * All recommendations welcome, though template structures limit implementation.


 * Most list… links will scroll down to the corresponding row of a new NavBox.
 * Special ellipsis style (unicode, small, italic) should be acceptable for limited InfoBox space and to indicate same page links.
 * Footnotes require more formatting. Notes' text seems bellow 11pt, should it be enlarged?
 * Horizontal Rules(lines) do not display properly in mobile version. However they are important visual cues in standard version.


 * Any differences between rendered InfoBox and the picture bellow?
 * Maybe you have Penrose doctoral thesis of 1957 or any links to 2015 publications?
 * There are some pictures of a signature online, but cannot find widely published sources. WP:SLP WP:BLPPRIMARY
 * Reliable secondary sources required to confirm marriages' details.
 * Edit source to see other comments. (code formatting upon completion)

If I do not receive any serious criticism or objections, will be uploading the InfoBox with draft NavBox to the article (talk). ---Fakedeeps (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Coleagues
Albert Einstein (science background)
 * M. C. Escher (aesthetic/mathematic influence)
 * John A. Todd (doctoral advisor)
 * Stephen Hawking (collaborator)?
 * Stuart Hameroff (co-writer)?
 * Vahe Gurzadyan ???
 * Michael Atiyah (follower)

Doctorants
Asghar Qadir (0000)
 * Lane P. Hughston
 * Claude LeBrun
 * Tristan Needham
 * Richard Jozsa
 * Richard S. Ward
 * Andrew Hodges
 * Tim Poston

Family
Joan Isabel Wedge (1st wife)
 * Vanessa Thomas (2nd wife)
 * Lionel Penrose (father)
 * Max Newman (stepfather)
 * Margaret Leathes (mother)


 * James Doyle Penrose (grandfather)
 * Elizabeth Josephine Peckover (grandmother)


 * John Beresford Leathes (grandfather)
 * Sonia Marie Natanson (grandmother)


 * Eliza Sharples (great-grandmother)⬇
 * Alexander Peckover, 1st Baron Peckover (great-grandfather)⬆
 * Stanley Leathes (great-grandfather)


 * Oliver Penrose (brother)
 * Jonathan Penrose (brother)
 * Shirley Hodgson (sister)
 * Roland Penrose (uncle)
 * Antony Penrose (nephew)

Education
University College School (1940s)
 * BSc(1st hons) in mathematics University College, London (1950s)
 * PhD University of Cambridge (1957)

Workplaces
University of Oxford
 * King's College, London
 * Princeton University
 * St John's College, Cambridge
 * Birkbeck, University of London (current)
 * Bedford College, London
 * Syracuse University
 * Polish Academy of Sciences

Awards
Knight Bachelor (1994)
 * Member of the Order of Merit (2000)
 * Fellow of the Royal Society (1972)
 * Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College ???
 * Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics (1973-1999, Oxford)
 * Associate of Academy of Sciences (1998)
 * Honorary Degrees: Bath (1994, ScD), Leuven (2005), Warsaw (2005), York (2006)
 * Wolf Prize (1988)
 * Copley Medal (2008)
 * Adams Prize (1966)
 * Heineman Prize (1971)
 * Eddington Medal (1975)
 * Royal Medal (1985)
 * Dirac Medal (1989)
 * Einstein Medal (1990)
 * Naylor Prize (1991)
 * De Morgan Medal (2004)
 * Fonseca Prize (2011)
 * GRF Prize (1975) ???
 * Schwarzschild Medal (2000)
 * Scott Prize (1997)
 * Trotter Prize (2010)
 * Richard R. Ernst Medal by ETH Zürich (2012)
 * Allahabad Institute (1999, design idea/tribute)
 * Texas A&M design
 * Texas A&M design

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adam Green (filmmaker), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Holliston, Frozen and FrightFest. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

IMDb: Restoration of Guideline, Policies Tune-Up and Future Projects
@User:Amortias @User:DESiegel @User:Peregrine Fisher @User:Dlabtot @User:Girolamo Savonarola @User:Jreferee @User:Nightscream @User:Maurreen @User:Father Goose @User:Jinnai @User:Metropolitan90 @User:Protonk @User:Kww @User:Termer

(@User:NinjaRobotPirate More importantly,) I am concerned about attitude towards IMDb. Criticisms (current policies) << h e r e >> appear to be based on opinion of a small group, which should be further discussed and cross-referenced with global strategy and guidelines.

I do support systematic trimming of non-encyclopedic, low notability pop-culture content. However, reasons (irrelevance, incompleteness, wrong categorization, poor formatting, style inconsistency, ...) for reverts/deletion must be clear, honest and educatively presented to corresponding contributors. Removal of material on the basis that it originates from IMDb is impermissible. I would, instead, recommend collaborating towards development of automated synchronization between databases.

Further is only personal PoV, and my knowledge is over 5 years old and not comprehensive. Still, all self-published personal/producer/agent websites and blogs/articles written by friends for friends are primary sources and should be judged critically. On the other hand, IMDb.com has historically been an exemplary website and database outside academia. I believe that, with onboard filmmakers, production companies, critics, database experts and specialized editors, IMDb is the main source of (English) cinema related information. They do have their own problems (commercialization, copyrights, glossy style, editorial approval delays) and might be relaxed towards current TV, comedy and other pop-culture content; but all data, relating to serious industry and important art works, is well formatted, reliable and more objective than anywhere else (blogs, websites, news, new-critics, faux-awards, mockup-databases or user edited Wikipedia).

Again, only personal opinion (and there might already be relevant established policies), but Wikipedia should not compete or imitate IMDb. Encyclopaedia aims for a small subset of the movie database's information - in appropriate style, summarizing and presenting significant art work, ideas, trends, etcetera; all their interconnections and correlations with cultural phases. Therefore, besides creation of interlinked visualization templates, the main Wikipedians' task is categorical compilation, completion and style perfection of historically important articles. This is work, which requires analytical perspective and judgmental stance (in contrast to primary sources' mirroring, which is fine for current/live content). Although, Wikipedia is not to compete in cine material quantity/detail; there is no reason why, encyclopaedia could not excel (or at least correspond) in quality, structure and management of information. I believe that, robust IM-database structure, sophisticated ratings' system and media storage infrastructure are some of the good examples for potential development, here, on Wikipedia. On the other hand, IMDb could greatly benefit from Wikipedia's user editing/supervision power (not sure about their position: copyright? reliability? politics?). Overall, I would recommend a new WikiProject (following collaboration between Wikipedia's academics and public/digital libraries) to research IMDb (IMDbPro), try to establish connections/policies and start work towards (semi-)automated synchronization.

I do not think, that my PoV strictly objects highly misinterpreted WP:USERG, which states that some of user submitted content on some websites is questionable. However, policy is still ambiguous and evidently requires clarification. Also, I oppose WP:RS/IMDB and believe that currently Perennial#IMDb is incomplete and quite incorrect, too. Official negativity towards IMDb originates from addition here by User:Nightscream, stating "help desk suggestion"$[1] [2] [3]$. What, regardless of whether it was Wiki-desk or IMDb-desk, does not add to credibility. And then poorly discussed, unsupervised, low attitude minority actions here. I would agree with an essay WP:Citing IMDb (and discussions: 07-2009, 03-2010), that seems informed on the matter. Still, (as suggested above) further research of IMDb.com is desirable. Urgent necessity is a somewhat controversial policy stating that IMDb is not a common website and a guideline, explaining database's structure/content/credibility (similar to referred essay, which had guideline status before mentioned event). Situation is further complicated by some Wikipedians unfamiliarity with website, plus their subjective PoV on ratio of editorial rigor between two sources and, finally, nature of IMDb staff (busy, not-too-social IT professionals) and users (ascetic actors and snobbish artists). Therefore, final judgment on suitability of content should ideally follow from discussions between Wikipedians, familiar with IMDb.com, and neutral/objective Wikipedia's superiors, possibly disregarding IMDb's excessive self-criticism (strict opposite of WP:USERG).

Dispute with IP Editors
What is your issue and obsession with consistently trying to change film director Adam Green's page over to be negative or reflect your own personal negative agenda and opinions? "Now makes self serving vanity documentaries"? The filmmaker has never made an actual documentary and "Digging Up The Marrow" is anything but self-serving and has been his most positively reviewed film to date. "After troubles with TV and film reverted to internet shorts?" What troubles? His body of work and output has been more consistent than most. "Hatchet" was "somewhat successful"? The film cost a mere 1.5 million USD to produce and has garnered over 40 million worldwide on home video with two produced, released, and financially successful sequels. You keep re-writing his page to try and slant his work and accomplishments negatively. Why? "Most of reviews concerning pop-culture are trash" - the filmmaker makes pop-culture films that appeal to their intended audiences through such outlets and you discount even major mainstream media like the NY Times, NY Post, Variety, LA Times, and Hollywood Reporter as "pop-culture trash". You keep changing "Hatchet 2's" description to say that Anchor Bay released the film when Dark Sky in fact released the film. Watch the film or look it up on IMDB for the information. Your changes are incorrect, unsubstantiated, and clearly reflect a personal vendetta against the filmmaker personally. Please check your facts and stop trying to defame or discount his various achievements by trying to post only the negative slants that you can find on-line or adding disparaging adjectives and descriptions. The amount of time and effort that you have dedicated to trying to discredited this filmmaker on wikipedia can only be interpreted as a personal attack as he is the only filmmaker that you consistently go after based on your posting history. Perhaps you're just not a fan, perhaps the filmmaker rejected producing one of your screenplays, or perhaps you have other personal reasons for wanting to tear him down but please take your vitriol somewhere other than Wikipedia or do the same "maintenance" for a multitude of other indie filmmakers and not just Adam Green. As someone who has maintained this page for almost a decade your recent negative obsession with him is concerning, unjust, and unwarranted and you have singlehandedly erased years of mine and others work on it. Please, please, please stop or find a public message board somewhere to express your personal distaste or hatred for this filmmaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE92:4E0:2818:49E0:DA47:C1A4 (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for initiating communication. Referring to multitude of relevant policies and guidelines would not be efficient here, therefore I recommend familiarizing with general outlines WP:PROMO WP:CCPOL WP:NPOV WP:ACCOUNT. Main issue with the article was sensationalism and WP:FAN. You are right about me not being a fan, but personal/subjective negativity does not apply, nether. My edits are aimed at balancing (and hopefully neutralizing) article's PoV. Disinterested of the subject, I do confess to frequent minor mistakes, which are promptly fixed by other constructive editors.


 * However, all your other resubmissions were simply vandalism of encyclopaedia. Please discuss any further concerns on Talk: Adam Green (filmmaker), before disturbing people work. Rewriting and/or stubbing other over-promotional articles, whether of filmmakers, different BLPs or else, is a noble goal. If you were to suggest or start a corresponding project, I would support you. Fakedeeps (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)