User talk:Wjbean/Archive 1

Though I am, by trade, a gear-head I enjoy art, music, literature, movies, outdoor activities, and open conversation. Wjbean 16:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Atmospheric_radiation_to_human.jpg
Hi, have you considered a drinking water pathway to this logic? For example deposition on plants and soil followed by runoff to groundwater, then ingestion.

I see that you need to keep the flow simple, but I think this is an important pathway, even though it doesn't suffer the concentration effects of ingestion by meat or milk.

Best, Pre1mjr 11:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct of course. Perhaps I could add another "bubble" called precipitation. Let me review the chart and see if I can figure out the best place for that. William (Bill) Bean 12:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

re:Talk:Elizabeth McGrath
For definitions of "significant" and "permanent" please look up Notability (people) and Biographies of living persons. It is all spelled out pretty clearly. As to Robert Williams, yes--- that article would come under scrutiny re:wikipedia policy since it does not have ANY references... so who is saying this stuff? Right under this edit window is the word "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". And yes, I would suspect that more than half the artist on Wikipedia may need to be deleted since this is an Encyclopedia.. not askart.com. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 00:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * re-added "notability" tag. Do not remove tags unless you specificaly address the underlying problem. Problem is stated in TALK. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I had specifically addressed "the underlying problem." I did not remove the tag until I added references. I've added more. I also added the {notability} after having removed it the day before. I'm not interested in getting into a test of wills here with you, but I strongly suggest you review notability guidelines for artists. Additionally, they are guidelines not standards. William (Bill) Bean


 * So I'm being accused of vandalizing my own talk page? Interesting concept. William (Bill) Bean

Issues
On the subject of the article there are two issues: I have no opinion about this, although someone was obviously pleased to see the article. If necessary it could go to AfD to make a decision. 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. It is a reason to find references, if possible.
 * Notability
 * References
 * I have been trying to update both the Robert Williams (artist) and the Elizabeth McGrath articles to improve the citations. I'm finding this difficult with Robt Wms (his other identity). Is it because he shuns the spotlight? I don't know. William (Bill) Bean

On the subject of tag removal, generally tags should not be removed unless the issue has been addressed. Arguments can and have been made for moving them to the talk page of the article.
 * I didn't remove the tag until I felt I'd satisfied the notability issue. Apparently Fountains of Bryn Mwr felt I had not. I'll reinstate the tag and see if I can't get a consensus on removing it. These artists are not mainstream; if they were I doubt they would adopt "lowbrow" as a moniker for the movement. William (Bill) Bean

Certainly it's also generally accepted that good faith messages should not be removed from users talk pages except when archiving. This is because when you do get a vandal (which I think is an unfortunate suggestion in the tag added later), they will rapidly accumulate warning tags and messages. I would say that it should generally be no big deal if someone does. Regards,

Rich Farmbrough, 07:42 21 June 2007 (GMT).


 * I like to keep my own talk page clean. The suggestion that I'm vandalizing my own page is ludicrous. William (Bill) Bean

There is a new post on the page Talk:Elizabeth McGrath

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.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sig
If you go to your preferences you can set your sig up permenantly, then you can sign and date your messages by using ~  As it is many of your sigs lead to WJBean instead of Wjbean. Rich Farmbrough, 07:45 21 June 2007 (GMT).


 * As far as I can tell I have set my preferences properly. I still get my name not a link when I add the tildes. Update; found the problem. Unchecking raw treats the tilde properly. William (Bill) Bean


 * Looking good. Rich Farmbrough, 19:41 21 June 2007 (GMT).

Attack?
"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 15:33, 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 had I 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)


 * 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 14:08, 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 15:15, 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 13:26, 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 14:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bean
Hi Wjbean, I see we have discussions with the same person. I am recommending we adopt an "ignore her, maybe she will go away" stance. My talk page is also being filled up with this nonsense. Just a word of help from a suffering fellow traveler. Montanabw (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to ignore someone who tags your own talk page with a vandalism warning. William (Bill) Bean 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OUCH! I shall tread carefully and wait another week or two before I blank my talk page of her nonsense, then.   Thanks for the warning.  Montanabw (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bill Tritt
Since you are the only contributor of real content, could you provide the source you used to create the Bill Tritt article? 24.6.65.83 05:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First, my primary source is a former employee of the Glasspar company posting on a boating board. That's hardly the type of standard Wikipedia goes for these days. Second, if you are going to comment, edit, or suggest having an account here is helpful. William (Bill) Bean 14:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but I choose not to. 24.6.65.83 17:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem really. I have noticed however, that credibility is sometimes tied to an I.D. Check the Bill Tritt page if you will and let me know if you approve of the references. Most everything in this article is directly referenced to these two sources. William (Bill) Bean 00:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Those look like very good references for the subject matter. Thanks. 24.6.65.83 03:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)