User talk:Look4light

Welcome to Wikipedia
naveenpf (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GRB 991216 DYK
Hey mate. I expanded GRB 991216 and nominated it for WP:DYK here. Good stuff! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks, thats so cool! And it got in to the WP:DYK! Good job on giving it more meat. Article is looking slick! I know you changed the name to to keep a consistent naming pattern: GRB 991216, but is it possible for "Beethoven Burst" to also appear at the top of the page when it loads? thanks, and all the best! --Look4light · Talk 19:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving GRB 991216
The reason that there were so many more hits for Beethoven Burst than there were for GRB 991216 was because you linked to Beethoven Burst in the DYK hook that was on the main page. It has nothing to do with accessibility. I agree with the decision of the user who moved it in the first place, and left a redirect so that anyone searching for Beethoven Burst would make it to the right page. Let's keep the naming convention for gamma-ray bursts consistent. James McBride (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks for your message. I see what you are saying, about the DYK hook, point accepted. And also understand on why you concur on naming consistency with User: Cryptic C62 (who I dearly respect, he did an amazing job on adding info to the article!). I guess it could go both ways. My choice is based on the policy Naming conventions that "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" and that "names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists," and that this title would appeal to a larger audience, and consequently also raise more awareness about GRBs in general. And where other links do exist with GRB 991216 that they too would link to the article. And so as in this case it became "necessary to trade off two or more of the criteria against one another" I felt that my chosen title edged it on the naming conventions criteria in relation to the "majority of English speakers" and "it's appeal to a general audience." Thanks again! Look4light (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, GRB 991216 is the superior name for several reasons:
 * "GRB" immediately identifies this event as a gamma-ray burst, and "991216" immediately identifies the date on which it occurred. "Beethoven burst" does neither of these. As such, "GRB 991216" is the more informative title.
 * "GRB 991216" would maintain consistency within Category:Gamma-ray bursts, which can be very useful for readers who are, for example, looking for information on all of the bursts in the 1990s.
 * "Beethoven burst" was the whimsical suggestion of a single astronomer and does not reflect the consensus of the entire scientific community.
 * Astronomers and readers from cultures which would not be familiar with Western music (such as the community of Japanese astronomers) would not understand "Beethoven burst", whereas "GRB 991216" is more universal.
 * In my eyes, these reasons far outweigh yours, though I obviously wanted to discuss the matter before we get into a naming war. On a side note, thanks for the kind words on my work! I'm a big fan of GRBs, so any time you want to collaborate on an article, hit me up. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I like your points obviously we both want the best for the article so that is great!
 * While initially a whimsical suggestion it has received some acceptance beyond just the solo astronomer who suggested it, 1. in news published from NASA Headquarters - Don Kniffen and Lou Kaluziensk referred to "Beethoven Burst" (http://www.aas.org/head/headnews/headnews.may00.html) 2. Corbet, R. & Smith, D. A. also referred the "Beethoven" burst to in their article for the The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000arxt.confE..97C) So granted it not the entire scientific community, but neither is it just a solo promoter.
 * As far as non western cultures are concerned naming conventions for en.wikipedia are for the majority of "English" speakers, and a "general audience" and so by my interpretation should not just favor certain "communities of astronomers." As far as Japanese astronomers are concerned, I have a feeling that someone from Japan qualified to such a degree would most likely have awareness of Beethoven: i.e. 1.)  Beethoven Sym.No7 mov.4 / ベートーヴェン:交響曲第７番　第４楽章: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vihKAfoCJPU, 2.)  ベートーヴェン　歓喜の歌　交響曲第九番 Beethoven Symphony No 9-video part1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKWm4SWzDjg 3.) Burn / Symphony No.5" - "交響曲 第5 Burn  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeBlowd2_kg  4.) Asagohan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXgJBzUv_qU /// this list could continue for a while but the last two are quite entertaining!  A matter of fact many eastern countries have issued stamps bearing Beethoven: http://www.lvbeethoven.com/Phila/Philately04Asia.html.  Thus I feel though initially it may feel counterintuitive but many astronomers and laymen from eastern cultures would bear some knowledge of Beethoven!  (perhaps this is to do with the fact that his music is not so driven by lyrics and music is a universal language in which many would concur he was a masterful communicator)
 * "Maintaining consistency within Category:Gamma-ray bursts is a real valid point though and this would make it easier for others to find GRB 991216 chronologically, and that is really important too, because I did notice that change when I moved the article. So there I do concur anything that makes the article easier to find, is what it's all about.  But wether it out weighs the prospect of it's appeal to a general english speaking audience... it's debatable I guess.
 * And of-course the info contained in the name GRB 991216 is also quite informative and compelling, but I feel perhaps the majority of English speakers may not be clear on what GRB stands for straight away, nor initially understand the format of date set in YY/MM/DD. The US norm being MM/DD/YY the UK/Euro norm DD/MM/YY, India DD/MM/YY too.  These regions would contain the majority of english speakers so wether the format actually aids the general english speaking audience in understanding the title any better or straight away is debatable.  "Beethoven Burst" is:  1. easier to remember for the general audience, 2. singles out this specific burst on his 229th birthday, 3. contains the word burst, 4.  Linking it with Beethoven who Einstein described as "too dramatic" for him, would describes this burst well as this was one of the most dramatic events detected in the universe.

Well thats why after throughly considering your points, I still feel for this title "Beethoven Burst" is the better choice for a "general audience." The one point that I do really feel GRB 991216 outweighs Beethoven Burst is in keeping the chronology within the category of Gamma ray bursts, however I feel most people would find it more easily with the current title. And so at-least by my estimate it's benefits surpass that of GRB 991216, and do more to further the cause of understanding Gamma-ray bursts for the general audience. And this is by NO means war! but a healthy discussion to get the most for this article! Peace, Love and discussions! Woo!

And I would definitely love to collaborate in the future with you on other GRB articles, as mentioned before I appreciate your skills and comments, they are FAB!

Thanks for your time in reading this response! Let me know what you think.--Look4light (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if it were true that "Beethoven Burst" would be more recognizable to the common English speaker than "GRB 991216" (a claim with which I disagree, but I will ignore that for the time being), I must point out that being the more popular name does not necessarily mean it should be the preferred term over the scientific one. In many cases here on Wikipedia, the opposite is true:


 * Cesium receives 2,160,000 hits on google, whereas caesium receives 829,000 hits. "Cesium" may be more recognizable to the common man, but "Caesium" is the article title because that is the preferred name in the scientific community.
 * GRB 971214 was nicknamed "Big Bang 2". GRB 971214 received 782 views last month. Big Bang 2 received 6 views last month. In this case, the once trumped-up nickname eventually fell into total obscurity, whereas the accepted scientific name retained its usage.


 * But now let me address your main point that "Beethoven Burst" is more commonly used than "GRB 991216":


 * GRB 991216 receives 411 hits on Google Scholar and 10,100 on Google. Beethoven Burst receives a mere 12 hits on Google Scholar (only three of which actually deal with the GRB in question) and 415 on Google.


 * These numbers support the conclusion that "GRB 991216" is the better name for the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions (astronomical objects)"Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists."

My main point is not so much that it is more "commonly used" but rather my preferred title has the potential of being more compelling to the majority of the general english speaking audience. I do believe it is a better name to appeal to the majority of people. The numbers you have provided from google and scholar are quite informative. If the naming conventions were to favor specialists I would most certainly lean towards the alpha numerical naming schematic. But we are meant to favor the general audience. While hits for GRB 991216 are higher, this information has been compiled for and accessed by "specialists." Thus far there had been little interaction between the general public and the beethoven burst.

This burst, even though the 2nd most luminous detected was still unknown to the general audience, hence there was no mention on it on wikipedia till last week! So I feel now that this gamma ray burst has been brought more into the mainstream that "Beethoven Burst" is a better name.

Now you could suggest different articles referred to by either their scientific name vs their common names: NGC 7293 82 views also know as Helix Nebula 7045 views last month, or Halley's_Comet 151,358 views or by it's official name 1P 519 views last month. The statistic for views and hits would sway back and forth depending on each specific entity.

In this instance over 5 days after DYK (ignoring that day itself), "beethoven burst" has received approx. 150 views compared to approx. 30 views for GRB 991216. So observing this trend it would appear that on wikipedia Beethoven Burst is already 5 times more popular. Hence I would say it is the best name for this subject matter on wikipedia, however if we were to write a paper for purely a specialist scientific audience the choice could be different. But for wikipedia keeping in mind a general audience who have thus far had little involvement with the Beethoven Burst on google and scholar search engines I feel already the numbers are starting support the choice in favor of Beethoven Burst.

In relation to Big Bang 2, that name was given initially on some misconceptions and hence later as more was known about the burst and other bursts it did not make sense anymore use it. I doubt however that Beethoven's birthday will be as variable over time.

There is however one point you had made in your earlier post. The issue with category and being able to view all the bursts by their dates side by side. This one point I do consider to be supremely valid and have contemplated on for some time.

I suggest bearing this in mind and the fact that the quality of this article is greatly down to your fine editing skills, we should strike a compromise. And title the article something along the lines of the example set by the Bubble Nebula (NGC 6822). i.e:  Beethoven Burst (GRB 991216) or GRB 991216 "Beethoven Burst" .... either using or " "

This way we can keep the name I feel better suited for a general audience consequently leading to more views on wikipedia and also put forward the information contained in the technical name, and allow for a more efficient search for those seeking information in the category of GRBs. And of-course both previous titles on wiki will still link to the article. --Look4light (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, your compromise is an interesting suggestion. I'm a fan of Beethoven Burst (GRB 991216) to make it accessible to both audiences and be consistent with Bubble Nebula (NGC 6822). We can then just add to the bottom of the article so it is sorted properly within Category:Gamma-ray bursts. Then we'll add a talk page link to this discussion to avoid future renamings by uninformed editors. Sound good? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sounds good to me! This way we should have all the angles covered. Please feel free to move the article to Beethoven Burst (GRB 991216). Thanks, and it has been a pleasure debating with you! --Look4light (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Egija Zviedre, modeling for Miss Sixty Fashion Show at Harrods, London Nov 2011.jpg
Hi! You uploaded this file with license PD-ineligible. That license is not good for photos. If you took the photo it is much better to select the license PD-self.

Thanks, I have changed the license to a one considered more appropriate for photos.


 * If you want to convince me that you took the photo, you will upload the original image with the EXIF metadata in place. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

RHaworth can you please show me where in wikipedia's policy it requires me to do that for a photo I have taken? Look4light (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not explicit policy but until you do it, I personally will not believe your claim and will continue to delete the image. I cannot imagine why you should object to uploading but you can e-mail it to me instead - via the second option on this page - the "e-mail this user link" don't support attachments. File:Egija Zviedre as the Bond girl with Mark Wright as Bond, Ritz Casino, London.jpg is such a blatant copyright violation, I naturally tend to disbelieve your claim for the Harrods image. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"It is better to believe than to disbelieve; in so doing you bring everything to the realm of possibility." Albert Einstein Look4light (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment re Bond girl withdrawn with apologies - you did upload it as fair use. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) Look4light (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Egija Zviedre as the Bond girl with Mark Wright as Bond, Ritz Casino, London.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Egija Zviedre as the Bond girl with Mark Wright as Bond, Ritz Casino, London.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Egija Zviedre, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mark Wright, Condé Nast and City of God (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bhim Singh with Yasir Arafat in the 1970s.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bhim Singh with Yasir Arafat in the 1970s.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Kolaver Di Ankit Love Cover Version.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Kolaver Di Ankit Love Cover Version.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 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Kolaver Di Ankit Love Cover Version.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Kolaver Di Ankit Love Cover Version.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 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zorawar Singh Kahluria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wazir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ankit Love's Forever album cover 2012.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Ankit Love's Forever album cover 2012.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ankit Love, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alternative (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Beethoven Burst on top of the MTV Hive top 100 chart, Jan, 12 2012.jpg.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Beethoven Burst on top of the MTV Hive top 100 chart, Jan, 12 2012.jpg.png. 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Ankit Love for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ankit Love is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ankit Love until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sockpuppetry as established at Sockpuppet investigations/योजनबुद्ध. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Rain Elwood for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rain Elwood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Rain Elwood until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kolaver Di Ankit Love Cover Version.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Kolaver Di Ankit Love Cover Version.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. --B-bot (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)