Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stereoscopic Displays and Applications

This is going to be a meta-comment, not just on SD+A conference, but also on the Wikipedia "requirements" regarding supporting an article. This is my first foray into editing / discussing anything on Wikipedia, so forgive my naivete.

Randykitty is taking me to task for not giving sufficient references or citations for my "claims" regarding the importance of the Stereoscopic Displays and Applications conference, which article is being considered for deletion. Maybe this is what Wikipedia requires, but I reject the notion that I should be merely a gathererer or collator of others' published knowledge, and not not be allowed to simply contribute my own knowledge. It is counter to the notion of a Wiki, that I cannot simply contribute my own knowledge! I have made my comments, backed them up with a story that might be refuted or believed, given a reference where appropriate, and see no further need to "research" other's contributions that may or may not support my own claim.

Randykitty might wish to dispute my claim(s), and back up their position with such research... why must I spend this time in order to contribute what I already know? It is discouraging.

I am the one with knowledge to contribute in this field, not Randykitty. I have the fifteen plus years of experience in stereoscopy, not Randykitty. If Randykitty had knowledge that went counter to mine, then they could contribute this knowledge - instead they rest their dissent on procedural rules. The fact is, they don't know about stereoscopy and can make no other argument. This is my impression.

with all due respect,

Retroformat (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * How do we know you're not a lunatic? ;-) Fgnievinski (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. How do we know a "reputable" source is reputable?  These days, we google it, probably.  I'm learning a lot about Wikipedia today...  not sure I agree with all of it, but I see the point. Retroformat (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a wild world here at Wikipedia. =) Please be welcome and make yourself comfortable. Please check Identifying reliable sources and Verifiability for the pertinent guideline and policy. Happy editing! Fgnievinski (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)