Jump to content

Talk:Ronald Fedkiw

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRonald Fedkiw has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 18, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that two 79th Academy Award Best Visual Effects nominees employed mathematician Ronald Fedkiw's model for their special effects?

Date of Birth is 1978, *not* 1968

[edit]

At the very bottom of his faculty page at https://physbam.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/ he has expressly stated that "DOB 2/27/78 (contrary to a popular typo)"; unbelievable, but he got his PhD at the age of 18. PaoloAluffi (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor question

[edit]

How is Fedkiw's surname pronounced? Is it FED-kew? — Athaenara ✉ 23:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Did I add it correctly to the article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I think so. — Athaenara ✉ 04:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Ron told me how to pronounce his name. "Fedko The "w" is a greek omega, and the "i" is silent. Ron"
Yes, Ron pronounces it "Fedco", so "Fedco" is right regardless of whether the origin explanation is correct -- GIrving (one of his students)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.135.195.68 (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate

[edit]

Lead prose says "circa 1972" but infobox says "circa 1976". —97198 talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Ronald Fedkiw is in fact born the 27 February 1968. See his Ph.D.[reply]

Comment

[edit]

I'm not going to do a full GA review, but I do have a comment: The entire "Personal" section needs a ref. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 01:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ronald Fedkiw/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I am going to be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • A little reorganization of this article may be in order. At the moment, his early life is mixed in with his career, and the Personal section reads like a trivia section. I would suggest creation a new section named "Early life and family" or something of the sort, in which the information on him up through his collegiate career, plus the information in the current Personal section, is contained. Then, the rest of the information can continue to stay in the "Career" section. Let me know what you think on this...
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The first paragraph of the Career section needs a ref.
    • The whole Personal section needs a ref.
    • What makes ref #2 (FILMdetail) a reliable source?
    • IMDB (ref #6) is generally not considered a reliable source.
    • In this case it is just being used to document an Oscar. It has a backup ref. The notability of this article rests on the importance of his work to the motion picture industry. I am just throwing in a couple of decent refs to document an Oscar here. I could probably cut out the IMDB or leave it. I am fine with either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is a very nice article, well-written and well-referenced. I have a few questions/comments about the layout and references, so I am putting the article on hold until these can be resolved. If you have any questions, drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, so I am passing the article. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading details

[edit]

I am in contact with the article subject via OTRS, and he states that he has tried to have corrections made to the article, but been reverted. I will be liaising with him over the next days or weeks to remove the errors where the sources we have don't match up with what he states to be the case. For example, the screenshot of Poseidon depicted a scene that he states he was not involved with, and the sources in the article are consistent with his statements. Please be on the lookout for good-faith corrections. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I talked to Ron when I created the article and he did not have much problem with it. If you would like, we can set up a three-way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal

[edit]

[[:Image:Poseidon 2006 movie ballroom flooded.jpg|thumb|Fedkiw felt his techniques were employed best in Poseidon.]] Why was this image removed when the text continues to read "Fedkiw feels the best result of the use of his techniques was the sinking ship shots in Poseidon." (sourced to The Stanford Daily)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone claiming to be the subject of the article removed it, with the comment that the ship's interior special effects were done by a different company from the one that did the external shots so it's a misleading image for this article. See this link for more:[[1]]. Someone has now removed the text, but it seems like the text is fine, just the image combined with the text is misleading. --130.209.6.41 (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason that both the text and the image should not be restored? I don't trust I.P. edits that conflict with our sources. Additionally, when I first created the article, Ron had no problem with the image. I spoke to him personally. I think the text and the image should be restored until a registered person has an issue with it. Ron is a pretty smart guy and could register if he wanted to. P.S. I see the edit, but no assertion that it was the subject of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. where do you see that the text has been removed. I see it is still there right now. So we are back to the image that was removed by a random IP, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. This is a BLP Tony, and there is an ongoing OTRS request being handled at present about the matter. Additionally Ron has made a very angry statement about misleading information on his webpage. Included is this particular point:
  • I GREATLY apologize to those people whose work Wikipedia incorrectly attributes to me, and do realize that I myself could be sued if I lied in the fashion that Wikipedia users have intentionally and persistently lied about me. In fact, I strongly encourage those people to take legal action against Wikipedia and I will willingly help with statements that I have tried to correct thesse problems to no avail.
It is more than likely he's referring specifically to that image. Until the matter is cleared up we need to err on the side of caution. I can understand having made this mistake initially, especially if Fedkew was in communication with you and did not mention the photo as a problem, but at this point we cannot restore it just because you don't trust IPs. Why don't you get in touch with Jclemens who is handling the OTRS ticket, if you want to clear this particular point up? Just don't add this back. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you link to the source please. You said it was sourced, but I don't see a citation that enables me to find it. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the interior shot of Poseidon is what is at issue. The subject said that an exterior shot of the ship sinking would be appropriate, in response to my specific question on that topic. Jclemens (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The problem with the image is that someone inserted it, who may have been trying to accuse the subject of copyright infringement. The subject got involved and says that we suck because by allowing this image, it makes him liable for copyright infringement. Not only ought the image be stricken from the article, but from Wikipedia per WP:COPYVIO. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I added the image 3 years ago, with no accusatory intentions and have no understanding of how the WP:DUCK test and is involved here. It was simply a picture about a subject commented on in the text. I understand the interior/exterior point but not the accusation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't know that I understand that DUCK comment myself. Who knows why he didn't comment on it before, but perhaps someone who did work on those indoor scenes contacted him and said, "WTF, how are you getting credit for this," and he was upset because he never realized. Either way. Problem solved. I hope he now realizes how easy it is to get this type of stuff settled, now that he knows where to ask. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Cross-posted form my talk page) Oh, just that it looks obvious to the subject, Ronald Fedkiw, that someone was trying to make trouble for him by making it appear that he's claiming credit for other peoples' work. That's the gist of what his email was to me. It's not so obvious to me, but according to my students, I'm clueless. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are a bit limited in terms of images for such a modestly notable subject as Fedkiw, we stretched to find images related to the text. That image of Poseidon was somewhat related to the text. I was just guessing that this was the part in the film where the ship sunk. I was happy to have an image to present to the readers related to the subject. There have been lots of problematic things stuck in the article in the past several week's. However, this long-standing image was not really part of that issue. However, since it was not precisely related to the text I understand the problem. Ron knows my intentions were to show respect for his Oscar by giving him a WP page. It gave me a reason to call an old friend who I had not talked to in years. He may be getting all the recent problematic text mixed up with the longstanding content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

According to the very last line of the very Ron Fedkiw's stanford page, to be found at [1], he is born in 1978. RonaldFedkiwTheBoerPirate (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://physbam.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/

Ukrainian origin?

[edit]

His last name seems to be of Ukrainian origin. May be important to Ukrainian diaspora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.179.152.225 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronald_Fedkiw&oldid=1207198169"