User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --TeaDrinker 02:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

AstroGraph Software
A tag has been placed on AstroGraph Software, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Fuhghettaboutit 15:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Academic Publishing Wiki
Thank you, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, for your comments about [The Big Bang, the Fabric of Space and the Apple]. I am a new wiki user, and I am still learning the protocol for publishing articles. I invite you to visit Academic Publishing Wiki, which is a new Wiki project that encourages users to promote the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wvogeler (talk • contribs) 07:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Academic Publishing Wiki
For your further consideration, I invite you to visit Amateur Astronomy, which is the link in question. As you can see, Amateur Astronomy is part of the Academic Publishing Wiki project. "It is meant to give people with original ideas a means of obtaining peer review and constructive criticism, and also to publish these ideas in wiki format for the free use and benefit of others." I am supporting this new Wiki project by linking to it where appropriate. For example, the Wikipedia entry for "Astronomy" is appropriate because it makes references to amateur astronomers: "Historically, amateur astronomers have contributed to many important astronomical discoveries, and astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can still play an active role . . . ." You can support Academic Publishing Wiki, too, by submitting articles and making links where appropriate. Thank you.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wvogeler"
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvogeler (talk • contribs) 16:21, 3 February 2007

Above user blocked for spamming, he/she had removed the blocking message from his talk page prior to your response to the above. Just to let you know. Cheers, Vsmith 01:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * TY for the FYI. I am always willing to give someone advice just on the off chance they were making (multiple) honest mistakes. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 15:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoting Academic Publishing Wiki
As you are aware, I have had some trouble trying to promote Academic Publishing Wiki and a new journal I created there called Amateur Astronomy.

Basically, I got into trouble after I linked from Wikipedia articles on "Astronomy" and "Amateur Astronomy" to Acadmeic Publishing Wiki and Amateur Astronomy because the articles said that "amateur astronomers can still make contributions to the science." Unfortunately, some Wiki users said I was spamming and then blocked me from editing.

I have stopped linking, but I think it would help Academic Publishing Wiki if users could link to it from Wikipedia where appropriate. It seems inconsistent to ban links to another Wiki community, especially when other Wikipedia links abound to less reliable sites.

I notice that the Academic Publishing Wiki has not grown very much since it was created in 2005, and so I suggest a change to the policy about linking from Wikipedia to other Wiki communities. Otherwise, I fear that Academic Publishing Wiki may fail like its predecessor from lack of exposure.

I would appreciate an intelligent discussion on this subject.

WVogelerWvogeler 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia "Promotes" Academic Publishing Wiki
Despite claims to the contrary, Wikipedia promotes Academic Publishing Wiki by linking from Wikipedia to Academic Publishing Wiki.

This is demonstrated by the link under "Further Reading," found at Wikipedia's policy page on original research

Further comment is appreciated.

WvogelerWvogeler

Delsarte
Please see my reply at Talk:Louis Delsarte. MdArtLover 16:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot help adding: please, yourself, understand what should be patently obvious: that the qualification threshhold for Delsarte's inclusion in a book such as A. N. Henderson's Contemporary Black Biography, profiles from the international Black community, which was already among the sources listed here at the time you issued your non-notability fiat, could not possibly be merely that the artist "exists". MdArtLover 19:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth McGrath
As to Liz (Bloodbath) McGrath. The terms under the wikipedia standards for "significant" and "permanent" do apply. Her work has been published and commented upon numerous times in articles and magazines. There is an entire "movement" that you may not be aware of. It has been largely underground for almost two decades. Regardless, it is still art and McGrath is still a notable contributor in that movement. I count at least thirty shows that she has participated in listed on Wikipedia. I suggest that you are not the sole authority on what qualifies as "significant." William (Bill) Bean

I addressed the issues that you cited for Liz McGrath by providing links. I also addressed the issues with Robert Williams. If you can drop a tag into an article an editor can certainly remove it. Most certainly after addressing the "offending" issues. Get a grip. Who the hell do you think you are? I think it's time for arbitration and perhaps a lecture (to you of course) about the functions of people on an ALL VOLUNTEER board. Or are you being PAID to be a pompous ass? William (Bill) Bean

Moved the above from your main page to this talk page. Please see my reply to your issues at both Elizabeth McGrath and my talk page. Please refrain from accusing me of vandalizing my own talk page. Just read the comments on Delsarte. Do you have something against artists in particular? Please note also that stated wikipedia "standards" are in fact guidelines and those guidelines for artists are not as rigorous as those for academics. Sheesh.William (Bill) Bean


 * Re: "The article is severely unde-referenced. However, that is not a reason to throw away the information in my view, although I know others disagree." Unfortunatly there are alot of people on Wikipedia that "disagree" with you, namely the ones who put up the official policy Verifiability where you will find the view that any if something is un-varified "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced".


 * Re: Me "being PAID to be a pompous ass".. please read WP:ATTACK.


 * Message by Fountains of Bryn Mawr left at User talk:Wjbean 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You've accussed me of vandalizing my own talk page and threatened me with a ban. Please read WP:ATTACK William (Bill) Bean


 * "Your "own talk page" is not yours, "pages in user space" "belong to the community" (User page. Such space is used for communication and to allow editor/administrators to review an editors history of notices. The current view of a page like Elizabeth McGrath is that if it has no references allowing it to be in Wikipedia then it could be SPAM since it basically promotes a commercial product. Avoidant removal of tags, i.e removing afd, copyvio and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content is considered vandalism. Dong that to a page that could be advertising would make you a vandal and suspected spammer, and BLANKING your talk is the tactic a spammer or vandal would use (please have a look at Spam). None of this is my saying that you are' any of those things, but if you BLANK your talk how am I to tell? My notice is not an attack... it is an attempt to make you aware of Wikipedia policy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 15:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is from the very "policy" page you cite. "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred . The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history." And I'll add here along with everything else. William (Bill) Bean 18:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me add a few additional thoughts here since you seem to be implying that I'm a spammer or are attempting to use wikipedia as ad space. I'll do this with some questions. How long have I been here? How long have you been here? How many artists do not sell their work? Would that number be a majority or a minority of artists? How many musicians or bands do not sell their work? What ratio of those are posted here compared to those who do sell their music? Did Liz McGrath create her own article? If Liz McGrath has been flagged for notability by you why haven't you flagged Chet Zar, Mark Ryden, or Robert Williams (artist)? William (Bill) Bean 19:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "since you seem to be implying that I'm a spammer" Perhaps you did not read "None of this is my saying that you are any of those things" Also deleting NOTICIES on article pages should not be done unless you addressed the problem. Spammers are defined by their actions including BLANKING their own talk. You can do it... but think what other editors are going to think of you.
 * I guess you missed the part where I said I felt I had addressed the problem. Too bad you didn't notice that before you tagged my own talk page with a spam warning. Without warning I might add. William (Bill) Bean 17:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How many artists do not sell their work? Would that number be a majority or a minority of artists? How many musicians or bands do not sell their work? What ratio of those are posted here compared to those who do sell their music? The answer to that is up to you to find out. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. That means that a reliable source has to be cited that such people as listed above are notable in some way.
 * Must is a word you apparently enjoy bandying about without any actual policy or guideline establishing the must. You also have quoted me suggestion as guideline, guideline as policy, and misquoted policy. William (Bill) Bean 17:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Did Liz McGrath create her own article?" does not matter ---> Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.
 * Again with must. I must ask this question. Who put you in charge? William (Bill) Bean 17:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "If Liz McGrath has been flagged for notability by you why haven't you flagged Chet Zar, Mark Ryden, or Robert Williams (artist)?" I found these articles in a little cleanup mission by searching buzz phrases such as "Fine art print", "Fine art gallery", and "Giclee". Such wording denoting a commercial product in general would not be mentioned in an article about a notable person re:their notable work. Commercial activity is not one of the criteria for "creative profesional" - citing nothing but commercial activity does not in its self establish Notability. I am not nuking every article about artist I see, just the ones that seem to be artist BIOs posted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia IS NOT a directory of artist, it is an encyclopedia that includes notable people. If you see other articles that are not up to Wikipedia standards IT IS YOUR JOB to do something about it.
 * This is an all volunteer effort. I'm not sure where you get the idea it's a job. That you found any of these artists with search terms "fine art" or "fine art gallery" is counter intuitive. Ms. McGrath does sculpture so you won't find her referenced with "Giclee." Finally, that you singled out Liz McGrath smacks of bias.William (Bill) Bean 17:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As to"How long have I been here? How long have you been here?" does it matter? Time editing means nothing, understanding the concept of Wikipedia means everything. If you cannot understand the basic concept of verifiability, what each and every editor should do to accomplish that, and basic funtions of Wikipedia space there is not much more I can tell you.
 * I have not only been here longer than you I am more familiar with suggestions, guidelines, and policy than you. I suggest you read them in their entirety and put away the badge. William (Bill) Bean 17:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fountains of Bryn Mawr 15:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, I strongly advise you to lighten up. This is not the first time I've made that suggestion. You are going to find that I am incredibly stubborn; especially when confronted with a self-made authority. William (Bill) Bean 17:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you are not understanding this. It is pointless to discuss it any further. As to "Must"... please look below any edit window you happen to open on Wikipedia and you will see the word "must". Ponder who put it there and why (and since I am some loser newbee, it obviously wasn't me). Fountains of Bryn Mawr 01:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Aparently the lack of understanding lies with you. This is a volunteer effort. Rules and guidelines are written with that fact in mind. One of the reasons I pointed out my length of time here was to counter any hint that I'm a spammer. I have also read policy, guideline, and suggestion even though some of these things change fairly rapidly. As to verifiability I've provided quite a bit of that. The last bit will require me to run down an out of print publication and reference that. Fortunately the publication Juxtapoz has the third highest subscriber base of any art magazine. William (Bill) Bean 13:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding removing comments from talk pages
Hey there. Someone pointed out that you were warning users that they would be blocked for removing comments from their talk page. In the case of IP addresses where we're tracking persistent vandalism, this might be the case, however, regular contributors are not prohibited from deleting comments. While it might be considered rude at times, its not a big deal otherwise. Just thought you might like to know. Thanks! Shell babelfish 00:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * TY for the heads up. The warning in question was added after User:Wjbean removed a ((notability)) tag twice in a row   and blanked his talk  page in what looked like an attempt to remove notifications on this matter. This action appeared to be “Avoidant vandalism” and I warned the user as such. The template I used was not my own  and I can see how its wording does not fit Wikipedia policy.  I will reword it if i ever have to use it in future. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 13:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You tagged my talk page, not the article, after I removed the notability tag the once. If you bother to read the guidelines (not policy) that is allowed. You are not the ultimate authority on what tags remain and how tags are removed. For the fifth time now I removed the tag because I felt I had addressed the issue. If you bother to read policy you'll see that is perfectly fine.


 * Tagging my own talk page as if I were vandalizing my own talk page is logically flawed. You are not an administrator, you are also new here. If you don't lighten up and start treading lightly I will move to have you banned. Other contributors are complaining about your heavy handed methods. I doubt it will take much to get the ban enforced. Fair warning. William (Bill) Bean 15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You said: "This action appeared to be “Avoidant vandalism” and I warned the user as such."
 * No you did not. You added the tag after I removed the notability warning, as is allowed by wikipedia guideline the first time. No discussion, no warning, you just tagged my page. The history page will show as much. Which makes you a liar. William (Bill) Bean 22:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You keep dismissing “guidelines” as being “not policy”. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy where you make edits and assume someone more knowledgeable is going to correct them according to a “policy”. It is assumed that you are policing yourself based one your understanding of the concepts behind Wikipedia including Consensus guidelines. Edditing according to Consensus is a fundamental part of Wikipedia. Don't assume that someone is reading your mind when you make an edit. A link to "How not to be a spammer" is informative and a guideline put up by others because your actions do matter... other people may judge you by such actions. Don't assume how long someone has been editing Wikipedia by the start date of an account. The fact that you read and/or miss-understood a policy may point out that time claimed editing Wikipedia might not be as important as understanding Wikipedia. As for my “heavy handed methods”, I see three people “complaining”. One flat out miss understood guidelines on external links, one misunderstood wikipedia notability guidelines, and one simply concluded that my edits were made for some personal reason and didn’t even bother to examine the edits or read the pertinent guidelines. When people misunderstand what they are working on the reality check can get noisy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 14:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are reading my mind now? I dismiss nothing. I read both guideline and policy. Do NOT lecture me on "how not to be a spammer." You are new here. It shows. You REALLY REALLY need to lighten up. I have told you this four (4) times now. If you can't you'll find yourself out in the cold...literally.
 * As far as I can tell you've made edits on three entries. You have managed to anger three different people in the process; myself included. That is a horrible track record. I'm tired of dealing with you. You've been admonished now for tagging my talk page. You've also gotten on another member about archiving his talk page. Just precisely do you think should be done?
 * The only misunderstanding I've seen is solely and completely yours. You do not seem to realize this is a community of people who are very serious about what they do. That does not mean YOU get to start tagging every page you edit just because you feel like it. YOU should be discussing these "problems" on the talk page BEFORE you throw tags. But you don't do that; you place a tag and the moment someone removes it you throw tags on their talk page or complain about editing their own talk page. You set standards that you yourself do not adhere to.
 * I have a suggestion. Find another place to lord about. This is NOT the place for you. William (Bill) Bean 15:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So... ignore someone’s total edit history and throw out generalizations about them based on not much. Sorry--- your arguments seem to be with the concept of "cleanup tags", and the general Wikipedia concept. You can take this up on the relative Wikipedia talk pages for those guidelines. I'm done. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 13:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You couldn't possibly mean like ignoring my own total edit history would you? You certainly don't seem to be familiar with it. William (Bill) Bean 14:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough I have seen both User:Annlanding and User:DownUndr talk pages both blanked of comments, after found out to be "sock puppet" for the purposes of repeated edit revisions of Doris Downes and Robert Hughes (critic), the latter only for content that relates to his third wife Doris Downes and his step-children. The DownUndr account has only made edits on other topics since I pointed out the blatancy of the repeated edit reversals. More recently Annlanding made an self-attacking edit on the Annlanding talk page and falsely attributed it to me to incriminate me - despite the edit history clearly showing Annlanding made the comments! ROxBo 14:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See also Editor assistance/Requests for allegations against myself and yourself, and independent comment. ROxBo 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

post your "Sidesaddle" image files to Wikimedia Commons
Goog afternoon, Fountains of Bryn Mawr. This is Kurihaya, a Japanese Wikipedia user. The article for "saddle" at Japanese Wikipedia サドル is just a stub right now and doesn't have any image file of a sidesaddle. Your "Sidesaddle no skirt devon pa.jpg" and "Sidesaddle back devon pa.jpg" can help us. I would like to post it to Wikimedia Commons and link it with サドル. You can find it on Wikimedia Commons and. If there are any difficulties, please contact me. Thank you. --ja:User:kurihaya03:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I give full permission to add these images to Wikimedia Commons. I will move them my self when I have time after my real-world duties... or you can add them there your self if that is possible. Sorry I cannot reply but since your User page is in Japanese I am afraid of clicking the wrong thing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 14:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your permission. I created my account at En.W. and Commons to do myself. Anyway, I would like to have a chance to ride upon a sidesaddle though I am not a woman. --Kurihaya 05:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sidesaddle
Hi, I just think you need to request the image be deleted first, then if the admins agree, take responsibility to find something suitable to replace it, given that you know how to edit and I know you have suitable replacement images. I have no problem if you substitute a different or better image, I just think that no one died and made you an admin, and until they do, work through channels. There are not many free horse images out there and we need everything we can get. I won't go as far as wjbean, but I can certainly sympathize with why he made the comments he did. You may not be aware of how acerbic your attitude and tone comes across in writing, but you really do come across as kind of prissy and kind of a snot. (sometimes we all do, I suppose) But I hope that isn't your intent. As for civility, that is of course a good thing, but it goes both ways. I might recommend that you take a look at Don't be a dick found in full at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick  Montanabw (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK... so far I am prissy, kind of a snot, a dick, and apparently a trumped up wannabe admin. Did you happen to read Civility? (Piece of advice... if you ever have to bring a problem to arbitration, using that "dick" link will immediately shut down the other editors to your point of view.. just some friendly advice). Editing articles to make them more encyclopedic and to make them conform with official policy and consensus is not being "mean". "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it". That warning may be for you, especially if you are taking editing personally. wjbean made several consecutive edits based on his (apparent?) lack of understanding that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and came to the conclusion that I was beneath his contempt for even suggesting an edit. When people come to Wikipedia with that mind-set a lot of shouting can ensue. My-bad is probably engaging such people in discussion, it can be hard to break through. If you look at the article in question you will see wjbean did seem to eventually understand the situation.
 * As far as the edit in question re-sidesaddle, it is not Wikipedia policy to use copyrighted material until someone can "find something suitable to replace it". Images that violate copyright should be immediately dealt with. The process here was to "Remove all uses of the image from articles — make it an orphan", and contact uploaded/apply the appropriate tags. You may want to read up on Wikipedia policy before you come to the conclusion that another editor is being "mean" or a wannabe admin. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 13:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Look in the mirror, cupcake, I have noticed that you don't take being edited particularly well. Oh, but I forgot: you don't need to be edited because you already are perfect and know everything.  Oh gee, 'my bad!  Also, it is obvious that you think that only you have the brains to go and read various wiki policies (Speaking of friendly advice, has it occurred to you that perhaps I am CHOOSING to be uncivil because I am sick and tired of your attitude?)  At the very least, at least be courteous enough AT THE TIME to replace images you remove when you already know they exist because you uploaded the replacements and used them in other articles.  But enough said.  I am sure you will have to write me one mre time and get in the last word, but I am finished with this for now.  Montanabw (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Saying "you come across as" is NOT the same as saying you are. Hope that helps. William (Bill) Bean 21:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposed: Serilith → Lithography
It has been proposed to merge the content of Serilith into Lithography. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 15:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your removal of my images
Hi. Well, thanks for informing me, then. Well, is the one for Celestron okay? Oh, and that startrails image, the "star" on the upper-left corner is easily visible. I found out that was Mars. Would that be good for the article, or is it too obscure? Well, on the image under "mythology" for Orion, I can't see any of the stars. There was an image that I requested to be expanded a few months ago, that I couldn't see anything at all even when it was large. At least with my image, you can see Mars. Would the Celestron image be good for an article that tells of human errors of sterotypically placing such things backwards? Can someone upload them to Commons under the same title? Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 23:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)