User talk:Halfblue

Welcome to Wikipedia
Hello Halfblue, and welcome to Wikipedia. I think you'll find Wikipedia an exellent place and have a good time editing articles. Wikipedia is very diverse and has articles about almost any subject.

If you're new to editing wiklipedia, you can check out the introduction. Then you can look at the tutorial for more information about editing on Wikipedia.

Some other links you might be interested in:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Have a great time at Wikipedia! Remeber that now you are a user, you can (and should) sign your name to *talk* pages (example) using four tildes: ~&#126;

If you have any questions, please stop by my talk page, I'm lonely :). Or you can go to Where to ask a question or place  on your talk page, and someone will come to answer you.

Have a great time here! -Xol 05:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Camcorder pic
I have been cleaning up Camcorder a bit and decided to remove the addition of your image of Indymediavid act.jpg for three reasons. Halfblue 14:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a poor image--- as a thumbnail it is unreadable (could be fixed with cropping and enlarging of the original file).
 * It is not very illustrative i.e 3 people with two holding a camcorder could be anywhere doing anything and doesn't illustrate a point.
 * Since you name your self as one of the subjects this seems to be a vanity picture WP:VANITY.


 * It wasn't me that added that jpg to the camcorder article - that image was actually uploaded to accompany the indymedia article, where I'm sure you'll agree its not inappropriate. quercus robur


 * Actualy I eventualy noticed that someone else posted it at Camcorder (see history). Even so the image still seems to suffers from problem #1 and #3 no matter where it is used. Halfblue 02:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reflecting telescope
''I linked you toward Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:NOT and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia because the pages both put forward the concept of "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". What you may need to grasp in your edits is that even "providing practical examples of theoretical concepts" has to have a logical structure re: what article you drop it into (on other words "Encyclopedic). The right stuff in the wrong article does not work very well. I don't know if you have a problem with someone editing your stuff (if you do Wikipedia warns you off the bat that this may not be the place for you.) Your recent edits have been bold but indiscriminant. Moving stuff wholesale without taking into account where you move it, not adapting to where you are moving it, not making it work with other articles and inter-article structures that have been affected, and not even discussing it on the respective articles talk page makes allot of work for other people. Maybe you are planning to clean it all up in the future but a little more care would be appreciated. Halfblue 23:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)''

With respect, don't try to lecture me on wikipedia policy as I have been editing long enough to know what is what.

I chopped some bits out and moved them and did not have time to finesse the moves immediately. My observation is that those that have an interest in a particular article will usually start integrating new changes almost immediately, as you have done, so no real harm done.

I appreciate that you are taking a bold position as am I, however I have contributed to this article and many others over a period of time and have been in a situation a number of times where someone comes in with a strong view and starts rewriting at an existing article citing blanket policies.

If I said that the purpose of the reflecting telescope article was to summarise designs and their implementation, then specific implementations would be valid. Of course the article doesn't specifically state that, but over a period of time, that is the flavour the article has taken. You have chosen to decide the article shouldn't reference implementations. That doesn't make you right, it just means you have a different view of the purpose of the article.

Based on my experience on wikipedia, I'm going to leave some of these related articles alone for now as I can see you have strong views and we may otherwise clash further, which I see no value in. Good luck with your editing. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually my edits are based on logic more than wanting to throw the Wikipedia book around. My logic is we have basic categories - sub categories - variations, all generic descriptions... and then maybe a reference or link to the commercial application if they are relevant. So I ask you what logical structure you’re basing your edits on? If its "thrown everything at the wall and see what sticks" that’s fine but be prepared for me and other editors to be bemused at your edits and probably remove them at some point.


 * If you say (for example) your VIXEN edit is "valid" because it’s adding "specific implementations", it brings up a few problems. Problem #1 is we only have one "implementation"... a commercial one... and that does have a name -> its called Spam. I'm not saying you intentionally spammed the page. But Spam concerns rise out of WP:NPOV concerns. A non-POV edit in that case would be to add several implementations and compare them one to another. When you add only one implementation out of all the ones there are out there then the article is not neutral. And when you add it to Reflecting Telescopes instead of Telescopes---> Catadioptrics --> Maksutovs--> commercial sub types then be prepared for someone else to move or excerpt it.


 * I assume you are saying your approach was "hey I'll add it and wait for other people to add the other examples". My approach was to move the content to the TALK page (as per Wikipedia policy) and note that it does not fit in the article for at least two reason stated above.


 * hey… articles build cruft and get superceded by newer more relevant pages. That leads to someone coming along and saying “hey--- does that still belong here?”. Halfblue 02:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Vixen's implementation is a unique design unless you are aware of another manufacturer who makes Cassegrain or Maksutov-Cassegrain telescopes without a corrector plate. I considered that a major and noteworthy variation of the original design and based on the state of the article at the time it seemed a good fit. I've moved it elsewhere since you seem adamant that it is not appropriate content for an article on designs. On a final note, I should point out that your perspective on what constitutes commercial spam is in error. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm-- IBM is spam ;^)? The Vixen model in question without a corrector is similar to the Argunov-Cassegrain telescope---so now we got two. Since you name two inventors in the description, and they don’t appear to be Vixen employees, writing from a Neutral Point Of View would be describing their invention and not a resulting commercial model (Same as the Maksutov is presented as an invention of Dmitri Maksutov and not a "Questar" product.


 * Listing just one commercial product in an article that has few or no other commercial products in it with florid language about how it performs would constitute Spam from some viewpoints. Like I said I don't think that was your intent. Halfblue 05:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Focal ratio
What's up with focal ratio?? It is redundant with the preexisting f-number. These are two names for the same thing, so they should be covered in a single article. I switched the former back to a redirect.

Please reply at talk:focal ratio. (Nevermind, I just found the discussion at talk:f-number.) --Srleffler 19:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Halfblue, please slow down on the link changing to your new redundant focal ratio article. When we revert it back to a redirect, all those will ideally need to be fixed back again. Also, please be careful when changing "aperture" to "f-number", especially when there's a numerical comparison involved that becomes inverted due to higher f-number being a smaller aperture. I fixed one for you already. Dicklyon 20:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That edit was actualy unrelated to the ongoing debate about f-number. The problem with that reference to "aperture" that I was trying to fix is that aperture has two meanings - the second being "diameter" of the Objective (optics). Its use there led to ambiguity since its convoluted style could lead to it being read catadioptric lenses come in only one diameter of objective working at a slow f-number... which is not correct since catadioptic lenses come in many apertures (diameters). I have edited it to take out any ambiguity. Halfblue 02:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter
The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter
The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:Films Newsletter
The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 06:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February Newsletter
The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 23:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Shyamalan M Night.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Shyamalan M Night.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

{subst:replaceable|Shyamalan M Night.jpg}} Abu badali (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

March WP:FILMS Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 00:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 21:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Image credit line on M13 and other Messier objects
Halfblue, Recently I uploaded my own images of some of the Messier objects. I only uploaded images in cases where I felt that my image was superior to the image already posted in the article. I used the previous M13 article as a model. It had a picture with a credit line. Hence, I updated both the picture and the credit line. You removed that credit line as well as the credit line to the other Messier object pictures I uploaded. If it is inappropriate to have used a credit line, then that is fine, I don't mind you removing them. But, many of the other Messier objects have pictures with credit lines and you didn't remove them... only mine. Is there a reason for that? PS. I'm rather new to this Wiki stuff, so I'm not sure that posting here is even the correct way of contacting you. I hope it is. Vanderbei

Sorry, I signed incorrectly (forgot the time stamp). Vanderbei 00:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation posted to my Talk page. Grok. Vanderbei 12:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Reddi Tesla POV-pushing
Can you help on Electric power transmission where Reddi is making his pushes too? ScienceApologist 17:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We might also try making a complaint at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement since Reddi was under probation on science-related articles for a year and has only recently come off of it. See Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2.--ScienceApologist 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please comment. --ScienceApologist 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It closed very soon, but perhaps for good reason. The discussion had the potential to become ridiculous. I think we should take the advice of some of the more level-headed administrators and petition at WP:RfArb to have Reddi's probation extended. --ScienceApologist 16:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm of the opinion that it needs to be done by arbitrators because the administrators do not want to make waves. Please do post there. --ScienceApologist 16:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Solidarity
Hey. Here's a symbol. If you want to show support, put it on your user page or keep it on your talk page; if we get it on enough pages, it might just count for something. Please remove it if you don't want to show it. And if you've got a better picture, be my guest and use it. I'm open to suggestions for viable alternatives to the present spoiler policy - we need those more than criticism of the current one, as justified as it may be. --Kizor 16:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

American films
Please please!!! help fill in List of American films. Even if it is just a few details it all helps -any contribution you can make will be more than appreciated!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you"    Contribs 17:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The June 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Nehrams2020 08:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The July 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Telescope
Well it needs to be condensed of course. And this is a start. An article on a telescope without even mentioning its history is pretty crap to be honest. If anything I'd suggest copy the history into the tlak page and then somebody consensing atwriting it properly. You compare this article to the one on the Hubble ♦ Hairless Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you?" Contribs 17:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Both the telescope and history pages are very poor indeed. Bla bla. The writing such as "A gentleman from Essex" sounds rather pompous almost as if it has been copied from a 1768 encylopedia. Both need a complete rewrite most of the text is not comprehensive -this is an encyclopedia after all. Given the high standard of other articles on astronomy and space related topics -I am very surprised that articles that form an important basis for the subject are given such little attention ♦ Hairless Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you?" Contribs 17:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The August 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Milky Way
I think we measure consensus differently. I see consensus more for going toward a comprehensive version rather than the version to which you reverted. I also think that your concerns about the principle of least astonishment are valid. What we should do is concentrate on improving the prose in the Earth-based observation section. That way you can pipe directly to that section in articles which refer to the Milky Way as a band across the sky. Nondistinguished 21:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't respond substantively to my points. References are not needed on talk pages and there are plenty of references in the article itself. More than this, the consensus is not as you seem to think it is since another editor other than myself reverted your edits. I didn't start any edit wars, I tried to incorporate what was comprehensive about your version into what was stylistically better about the GA version. Others seem to agree with me.


 * Take a hard look at WP:OWN and ask yourself whether you are really working in a collaborative way or if you yourself are guilty of what you are accusing me.


 * Nondistinguished 12:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

On my talk page, you wrote that there was "overwhelming reference that the GA version of this article deficient in the fact that it has the wrong name and totally ignores the thing that has that name." Please present that evidence in a concise manner. So far, I have seen none. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have no objection to incorporating that material into the article where you think it is necessary, or expanding the article in order to discuss this topic further, however I do not see how this justifies a page move. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's hard to follow the talk page, with all the anon IP's and fragmented topics. Can you tell me exactly what outcome you would like to see?  From what I can gather, you would prefer to move the current article, Milky Way, to Milky Way Galaxy.  Then what?  Does Milky Way simply exist as a redirect?  That won't work, as that article is already the primary topic.  If you would like to create a new article about the band of white light itself, there is nothing stopping you, but I can't see a need for such an article. Please reply on my talk page with your wishes and goals. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 13:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please also explain how your reversion improved the article. Milky Way is the primary topic, i.e. the Galaxy. It is not about a "band of white light" no matter what you call the article; This is not a disambiguation page.  We already have that at Milky Way (disambiguation). &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 13:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And btw, if I inadvertently removed some of your previous additions, please let me know and I will try to add them back into the article. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a dispute. I would like to find a way to negotiate a resolution to this dispute.  Have you considered filing an RFC and adding an RFM entry?  I think that these two procedures will go a long way towards ending this impasse.  If you are game, here's what I would like you to do: using the most neutral wording, formulate the dispute in less than fifty words and add it to the bottom of the article. Then, we can add an official RFC and RFM at the same time.  Please consider this. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 13:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:DICDEF. The "Milky Way" refers to the Galaxy as a primary topic regardless of dictionary definitions.  The current article already mentions this in the lead, however there is always room for expansion.  If you think this can be expanded beyond a dicitonary definition then find sources that do just that and add them to the current article.  When that material gets beyond a certain length, then you have justification for a new article.  I don't understand why you dispute that "Milky Way" is the primary topic.  If you can find good reliable sources that expound on "Milky Way" vs. "Milky Way Galaxy" beyond a short dictionary definition, then you will be entirely justified in creating a new article.  Otherwise, I'm not sure what your goal is in this case.  The Sun is not the Solar System, quite true, but the Milky Way is essentially the Milky Way Galaxy, even if we are talking about what the observer sees from Earth.  Why can't a discussion of this perspective be included in the current article? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 14:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "We at least need have an article with two headings that can be wikilinked so that the reader can be taken to the two distinct things." That's precisely the purpose of the dab page.  The primary topic (in this case, the Galaxy) will always link to the dab page at the top: Milky Way (disambiguation). &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 14:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call
Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add   to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. We also have several task forces that you may be interested in joining as well. Also, elections for Project Coordinators are currently in sign-up phase. If you would be interested in running, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. You can see more information on the positions at WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing! An automatic notification by BrownBot 23:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter
The September 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 23:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Questar children ad.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Questar children ad.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Questionnaire
As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Star Trek
Hello, Halfblue, this message is being sent to inform you that, due to over two years editing inactivity, your username has been taken off of the list of Wikipedia Project Star Trek active conributers. If you have returned to active editing Wikipedia, please re add your name to the list of active contributers. Thank you, -- Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Edmund catalogs 70s.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Edmund catalogs 70s.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Questar Corporation logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Questar Corporation logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  19:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!