User talk:Paul Moss/archive2.html

and NO discussion here? you guys are a little past the reality check..

Proposed deletion of Skygazing
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Skygazing, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Skygazing
An article that you have been involved in editing, Skygazing, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Skygazing. Thank you. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

older vandalism to wikisite, here for reference
The Wikipedia Article about Carter edits.


 * 1) (cur) (last)  06:12, 23 February 2006 210.55.80.91 (Talk) (rev vand) (undo)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 09:48, 22 February 2006 203.96.147.87 (Talk) (rv) (undo)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 09:26, 22 February 2006 210.86.34.226 (Talk) (fixed links.) (undo)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 09:23, 22 February 2006 210.86.34.226 (Talk) (fixed text) (undo)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 09:19, 22 February 2006 210.86.34.226 (Talk) (npov) (undo)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 22:19, 19 February 2006 203.110.28.82 (Talk) (undo)

22 feb 2006

Once opened, the observatory failed to become a base for astronomical research in New Zealand, instead succumbing to the machinations of beaureaucrats. Idle boasts of research began with solar investigations, and when new staff joined during the 1970s, research was claimed to cover subjects such as variable stars, galaxies, comets and asteroids, but virtually nothing useful ever eventuated. The observatory still does not have a formal research programme, and is over run with amateur astronomers.

In 1977 the Carter Observatory was designated as New Zealand's National Observatory, even though the only real productive facilities were Auckland Observatory and Mount John University Observatory, and in fact still are. This status is finally being reconsidered, however, because the observatory lacks the necessary credibility and respect to be classified as a National Observatory.

The Carter Observatory is located in Wellington, New Zealand, at the top of Wellington's Botanical Garden. In the past it carried out some trivial research, meagre preservation of heritage, ineffectual education, and promotion of itself to the public.

The Carter Observatory possesses two mostly useless telescopes within its main building. The Thomas Cooke Telescope, named after Thomas Cooke, is an historic 9 3/4 " Cooke Refractor, primarily used for public observing sessions. The Ruth Crisp Telescope is a research-grade 41 cm reflecting telescope made by Boller and Chivons of the USA donated by Ruth Crisp in the 1960's. The instrument was once housed, and used for research, at Black Birch Observatory, in the South Island.

The Carter Observatory also possesses a planetarium that employs a ZKP1 Zeiss projector, a small lecture-theatre, a shop, and several offices. Nearby, the Carter Observatory also possesses the Thomas King Observatory, used until recently for public viewing of the sun during the day. The Hydrogen-alpha filter used to view the sun through the Thomas King refractor has now been moved to one of the telescopes mounted to the side of the Thomas Cooke refractor, in the main observatory building. A library of astronomical journals and literature was present on the site until early 2005, but was disbanded due to inadequate availability to anyone interested, thanks to the clique of hopeless amateurs and paper shufflers in charge.

and then from this:

All of the images in this article that are by Paul J Moss are the first in a series, taken quickly and with minimal preparation and post-processing. They are independent of the usual operation of the Observatory, and created for the pure enjoyment of sharing this facilty with everyone. The exposure details are included on the respective image page. The technique of eyepiece projection used for the Saturn images is not the best available, with a 40mm eyepiece fitted to the lens of the camera, although delivering remarkable results in all the circumstances. These images are the second small step on the path to learning to acquire higher resolution images, using newer imaging technologies and techniques.

to this:

All of the images in this article that are by Paul J Moss (yet another useless amateur with dreams of personal glory), are the first in a series, taken quickly and with minimal preparation and post-processing. They are independent of the Observatory, and created for the pursuit of ego and personal gain. The exposure details are included on the respective image page. The technique of eyepiece projection used for the Saturn images is not the best available, with a 40mm eyepiece fitted to the lens of the camera, and delivering unremarkable results in all the circumstances. These images are the second small step on the path to a building or telescope somewhere named after Paul 'Look at me!' Moss.

my notes
Note: this is indicative of some of the bad behaviour i witnessed here, and explains to some extent why i am less participative than I would like to be. Its pure drivel by someone who forgot their lithium. paul moss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.132.248 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Skygazing simply exists
It matters little in the scheme of things whether Skygazing is or is not included in wikipedia as an article. It certainly ISNT astronomy, and thats simply a dumb response, that everyone should see for what it is, ritualistic cleansing.. here is my response:

I was recently on a beach taking photographs of and gazing at the sky, as I do nearly every day, when three young maori boys asked me what i was doing, and I said to cover the sun and GAZE at the HALO around it, out WIDE. Now two of the boys instantly saw what i was photographing and exclaimed, "Mean" etc as they do, while the third failed. I said let your GAZE expand out as wide as you can to see the HUGE halo that is very faint and like a circular rainbow (Uenuku and Aniwaniwa in our native culture). It took a special kind of looking, called gazing, that enabled us to see that halo, while the camera has no such difficulty. The halo also was reflected in a pool on the beach, and the image made it to pic of the week at MetVuw Weather site thats our national weather site. You can see it it here: Halo pic.


 * You can see many of my other SkyGazing pics at that site, going back several years, many of them REQUIRE 'SKYGAZING' techniques to be able to percieve them in reality. Of course a fish eye and camera change that, and they are easily seen once reproduced.

I might add that I learned back in 1980 to SCREENGAZE at spaceinvaders to be able to rack up much higher scores.. its different to looking, its an eye AND brain function, same as hearing and listening are quite separate and connected functions.


 * Whatever, I delivered enough links to the truth, to observe the process, and predictably editors failed to use the verifiable data, much easier to kill than heal. mmm  Paul Moss (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Skygazing needs an article written in an acceptable way to survive
I detest the efforts with skygazing. They seem to follow a history of fighting well meaning wikipedians. For the record i gave up bothering in this space due to behaviour such as this, its absurd and ridiculous given the clear and easily verifiable truth. The best alternative would be to fix and upgrade the articles but thats not the agenda for many wikipedians. It seems like there is a concerted effort out there to undo everything i ever did to wikipedia, and while that may not be true, there is a great deal of this deletion activity. There are so many convoluted and complex rules that basically anyone can fight under a variety of platforms and win, because most of us simply cant be bothered fighting anymore. The reality doesn't seem to matter, they just want to have whatever their target is for the day removed, ie winning is everything. Discussion and argument seems futile, if it exists at all in many cases, and so I have decided that pragmatism is to move on with more important contributions to the world's net information; and protect it behind my own domains.


 * There IS such a thing as 'Skygazing' or 'Sky-gazing' and its NOT exclusive to astronomy, its a 24/7 process practised for millenia by every civilisation, and by myself every day!! I have a site www.sky.org.nz SKY org that is dedicated to such behaviour. I recently  screened 5 movies of the pure sky lasting 24 hours in one of our country's most important art galleries, the Dunedin Public Art Gallery, with world famous composer Warwick Blair, providing the music also for 24 hours.  So in truth the audience were in fact sky-gazing, on 5 movie screens. My movie opens at our National Film Archive here in our capital city of Wellington NZ in 3 weeks time, and runs for a month, and also runs as a 6 screen version next year for the Auckland Fringe Festival of the Arts at the most prestigous venue, MIC Toi Rerehiko Galatos... We previewed the work at Auckland University's Gus Fisher Gallery in april..

The answer may be for me to name a project 'Skygazing' sometime and have that in a notable gallery. I am considering that approach with some other deleted articles, due to my firm conviction that they are part of real human life and our national and international history. Truth is more than a dictionary of english words.


 * The Pacific migrations RELIED on 24/7 SKYGAZING to navigate to my country centuries ago, and the art is undergoing a very strong resurgence, as evidenced in many publications. See the award winning best designed book Astronomy Aotearoa Astronomy Aotearoa that i contributed sky images to. In fact those very images have been published multiple times in Newspapers and websites well and beyond most wikipedians need for notability.  my user name is paul moss..

any more articles needing a cleanse???
list them here; lol

old user page comments moved here to cleanse my user page
...... Yet another new user page for the same user, a real person with thte real name of Paul Moss, (doing real things out here to HELP HUMANITY,) that started here a few years back and has continued to edit, contribute images, and generally improve the content of wikipedia, although has seemingly broken the rules, its all a learning experience, and its a bit complex and has multifaceted appearances that are only seen in one personal way by others according to their particular mental set and setting when they view it. standard psychology, not that deep, but very cutting.

So lets just get on with building a better place ok.

Its NORMAL wikipedian ettiqutte to communication with respect on the user's discussion page, is that TOO much to ask for? nearly every other wikipedian complies...

And if you removed stuff from here can you give it back? put it on the talk page if you dont believe it should go here, whatever, but try and see the wikipedia value in collaboration and cooperation vs defection, ancient principles that still apply..

april 08..

so anyway I started out editing wikipedia mostly to build pages about the country i live in, i grew up in, and to provide images to illustrate those articles, and like most editors, they were about music, art, astronomy, and places, geographic features, interesting things, and even mythical things, apparently...

but wikipedia is a world of its own, so defended!! an interesting and intricate place, lots of scared people!! fear is the opposite of love, my friend sings to thousands.. fear is used to control.. lets have more love here, more respect, less suspicion...

This page is supposed to introduce me.. it used to, but the intro was too good, smacked of vanity or commerciallism or something, hard to really comprehend, seems that to be a wikipedian you have to be nuetered and dull or something.. whatever, someone will mess with you if you appear too good for the place, and pretend that you were here for the wrong reasons, or that you wernt even here at all.. wierd given the hundreds of excellent photos i gave and the zillions of edits i made to fix stuff.. but there ya go..

so out here in real-real land, things are changing, people have seen fit to write about me, publish my pictures, print pics of me, make documentaries about what i do, and generally I'm entering a new era that transcends all prior eras..

out here people count, we dont dispose of our friends and aquaintances just because they appear to be unsuited to the environment we are currently inhabiting, we figure out how to work together to achieve our common goals... we do stuff for society that is real and good.... hard to understand true.. but there is a physical reality as well as wikipedia..

oh to be one with my computer.. not.

Bot WPNZ tagging
Hi Paul, I've replied on my talk page. XLerate (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Discover Magazine Demographics
97% of DISCOVER's subscribers are "focused" while reading an issue. 70% say they are "fully focused". Reading time is more than 2 hours per issue. Median percent of pages read is 78%. More than 1 in 4 visited an advertiser's website for information. 9 in 10 discuss what they read in the pages of DISCOVER.

Audience % Comp Adults 6,227 100.0% Men 3,467 56% Women 2,760 44% Median Age 44.2 Age 18-24 3,927 63.0% Age 25-49 3,196 51% Age 35-44 1,347 22% Age 45-64 1,410 23% Median HHI $63,385 HHI $60,000+ 2,918 47% HHI $75,000+ 2,190 35% HHI $100,000+ 1,485 24% Graduated College+ 3,575 57% Employed Full Time 4,008 64% Own Home 4,100 66% SOURCES: 2008 MRI DOUBLEBASE, 2008 MRI DOUBLEBASE PRIMARY READERS, ERDOS & MORGAN STUDY 2007

Circulation: Full report DISCOVER delivers high-quality paid circulation and an audience of almost 6.7 million readers.

Selling more than 100,000 copies on the newsstand every month.

Average Price per Net Sub of $22.

TOTAL AUDIENCE DISCOVER reaches an audience of almost 7 million informed and influential readers every month. Audience (000's) DISCOVER 6,710

Scientific American 3,440 The New Yorker 4,542 Wired 2,888

Source: 2008 MRI Fall

Sky and Telescope Magazine
From Rate Card #49 Effective January 2008

Male: 95% Female: 5% Average age: 51 Married: 70%* Graduated from college or higher: 77% Professional/technical careers: 60%* Average household income: $94,400 40% have been involved in the hobby an average of 20+ years* 26% have been involved less than 5 years* Subscribers classify themselves as beginners: 10%, amateurs: 49%, advanced amateurs: 38%, professionals: 3% Total paid circulation: 90,055 Pass-along readership: 0.7 Grand total readership: 153,094
 * Simmons Research, Inc., June 1998 — all other data from Publisher's Subscriber Survey, May 2005, and ABC Publisher's Statement, June 2007.

Reference

Notable or Not?
Would having my image printed in those two magazines in April constitute notability as a photographer, when the issues go on sale with my deatils in the accreditation? (its a HALF page pic in Sky and Telescope illustrating an article written by Mike Simmons, co-chair of 100 Hours of Astronomy, an IYA2009 cornerstone project..)

VOTE HERE:

No - SimonLyall (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Simon Lyall, what would you know about it. it's clearly more than you can ever hope to even comprehend, let alone pass credible judgement on, but the good thing is that you have shown your lack of respect for an achievement that transcends anything in this space. your vote is meaningless, a sick joke from a very sick mind.

This page in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

User Page Guidelines
Paul, I realize that you are trying to prove that you are important enough for a real page and also to give a bit of SEO back to you other websites but your user pages are really outside the guidelines. Especially since all you do on wikipedia these days is update them. See WP:UP on "What may I not have on my user page?" which includes:
 * Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia
 * Extensive self-promotional material that is unrelated to your activities as a Wikipedian
 * Advertising or promotion of a business or organization unrelated to Wikipedia (such as purely commercial sites or referral links)

- SimonLyall (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * a 'real' page? whats that? I dont have to 'try' and prove anything, i've done what i've done and now I have multiple mainstream media verification.  If you bothered to track my other sites you would know that they are pretty un-important in the scheme of things, some of us have moved on.. gp and preach to someone who needs it, youre wasting youre time here.Paul Moss (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)