Middle gray and 18%

Hi Alf, I was curious about the 18% reflectance number myself, and as far as I can tell, it is because in a typical 5-stop range (such as is normally found in "typical" papers), 18% is the middle. In other words, if you defined these five stops as Zones 1-5, then Zone 5 would be 100%, Zone 4 would be 50%, Zone 3 would be 25%, and Zone 2.5 would be 18%. I think this is mentioned in some of the literature (I seem to remember seeing it in an Adams book), but I don't have hard references at hand today. Does this sound correct? Girolamo Savonarola 22:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're saying the same thing - in a five-stop range, the middle stop should be at 18% reflectance. That's where the number comes from - it's the geometric mean of a 5 stop doubling progression. Logically 82% absorbtion is the same as 18% reflectance. Girolamo Savonarola 23:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to go ahead! Girolamo Savonarola 23:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Fra1 col Alb.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fra1 col Alb.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Gno neg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gno neg.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

IP (whatever)

Yes, had to go out to see a red ship.

- Then we happen to stay in the same hotel today. Make you a deal, if you buy me a drink I'll ask my wife to bring you the book you need for the Jacobson bio, she is flying in later this afternoon

- - Sounds like a deal Rough 13:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Be ther in 30 minutes Rough 14:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kafenio

Hi Alf, I saw your discussion (above) with Rough the other day it didn't click with me that that you were the Alf mentioned in the article. I'm unsure how much you know but there seems to be a complex of related articles and associated users - its quite intriguing. As far as the Kafenio article is concerned, my conclusion is that its non-notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned - it reads like poorly written promotional material with desperate scraping of anything of note to be included. Unencyclopaedic generally. From your comment on my talk page, it sounds like you're suggesting similar. Am I reading you correctly? — Moondyne 23:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

frummer has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Matthew Fletcher

Thank you for your involvement in the discussion of this article's deletion.

However, a new source has become available, as mentioned on the disscusion site, should you wish to reconsider. --Reverieuk 19:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Terdiman

I've been working on improving this article and finding better sources. I saw that your delete was "weak". He has received an award for his work and seems to have a pretty strong body of work; looking beyond the sheer magnitude of the G-hits, the content of the hits seems strong and he seems notable as being discussed quite a bit. Sometimes you just know that the subject is notable to the spirit of WP, but it's hard to beat the micro application of the standards.

What do you think?

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 01:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad

What is it exactly that you wonder about me? I am referring to your statement "... sometimes I wonder about the deletion nominators". Agha Nader 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnie Ginsburg

Added a bit more GM of two other radio stations then co-owner of another, then owner of another. Then when he sold the final he became president of Pyramid Broadcasting, a collection of 12 stations. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 22:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jyrki Niskanen

Further to your comment at the AFD debate, I have re-written the Jyrki Niskanen article from scratch, and would appreciate your opinions. Thank you. Eludium-q36 18:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Randolph Hearst III

I expanded the article. Perhaps it is worth keeping now. --Eastmain 21:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on an AFD

Could you please explain your comment that you put on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph T. Bockrath? Thanks! Gracenotes ^T § 04:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Angie Phillips

Hi. The AfD for this person has been re-listed. As you had reqested references during the AfD, this is just to let you know that many references have been added since and perhaps you'd like to have a re-look. Thanks. --Oakshade 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalanidhi Maran

I added some references to Kalanidhi Maran, which I think demonstrate notability. --Eastmain 02:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Webster

Please take another look. Article is almost completely verifiable now. It will take a little time to find the original publications of articles, etc. but this guys writing was easily available on the magazine rack of mainstream bookstores, in Mezlim, Gnosis, Green Egg, etc. Khabs 17:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SEETAL

Based on your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalena Trzebiatowska, I have created a stub for SEETAL. Please review and make any alteration / expansion you feel appropriate, as I know nothing of this event. John Vandenberg 06:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (6th nomination)

What do you mean by "principles", in your statement on this AFD? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term is ambiguous, which is why I ask for clarification. Can you please explicate? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the meaning of the word, but I was more interested in which "principles" you were assuming to have motivated my decision to list the article on AFD. Not trying to be confrontational; I just don't understand what you're getting at, here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me at a loss, here. If I don't know, then how can I guess? I mean, it's like me saying that you wrote what you wrote because you had "reasons". That's probably true, but not really helpful, since a whole bunch of different things could fall under the heading of reasons. Do you understand why I'm confused? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes more sense. Thanks! -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artists

You have anticipated what I was hinting at--the standards for visual artists of all types seem unsatisfactory, and WP needs a better way of discriminating. I'm equally concerned about not having the important ones as inserting the unimportant--if there is anything which is hard to predict by anyone it's the future standing of people in creative fields. But I know the academic world, not the creative arts, and feel a little lost--I suggested a week ago or so that if w could get some consensus about which exhibitions are notable it might help. If they're on university faculty I feel more confident because the faculty have judged them & it's possible to tell which are the good departments (my usual research university as standard doesn't always work here) --but this seems to be frequent only in the US. I also noticed a certain similarity in the format of many of the entries. DGG 02:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Indian Art Awards

Hi! Have you already started working on the list of notable art awards. If yes, please provide a link -- I'll try to add the notable Indian art awards. utcursch | talk 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts-related AfDs

Here's a template to use in an AfD, when it has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts (please do list appropriate AfDs there). I think it should go under the article details and above the nom statement, as it is a formal notice and not part of the debate. It will sign your name with date stamp automatically. Please pass on to others.

Mnemonic: List of Visual arts-related Deletions.

Template to use:

Result:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. Tyrenius 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt

I am less concerned with the inevitability of outcomes than with the complete lack of consensus in either direction, which is supposed to be the operating principle behind our discussions. In the haste of this particular situation, it has immediately precipitated things into a binary keep/delete discussion, with no thought given to possible alternative approaches or how to reach any kind of agreement. That makes it impossible for ideas like Zocky's to even get a fair hearing. --Michael Snow 01:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you know who

Glad to see your sensible comment; here is mine. I think the honest people here need to encourage each other. DGG 02:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sure got some people pissed though... I don't see the fuzz about either of the big AfDs anyway. Sometimes I have the feeling that Wikipedia is a ersatz-religion for some editors where all heretics must be burned on a stake Alf^Photoman 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Redlich

Thanks for the references. Agathoclea 10:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuriy Leonovich

I understand. So would would program notes, newspaper article about an upcoming concert, and reliable internet references work as 2nd party references? What if they are only in print form...not online?

Sergei Lysenko 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I can only come up with 2 online sources. However, other sources a program to a concert and a newspaper clipping I must find and scan (what should I do with the scan documents there after?). I will put the online sources on the "dispute deletion" page.

Sergei Lysenko 22:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

refs for Miah

In the Books section he refers to "Approximately 15 book reviews: Times Higher Education Supplement (2005); The Lancet (2005)" What I suggested is that he give the exact citations of the reviews, because a significant review can be used as a third party source if the content is substantial & not a listing. They arent ideal 3rd party sourced, but they are independent of him & published in a RS. He should have others, and he should add them. should I add anything on the Afd to clarify this?DGG 00:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC) (and the ed. is a rather stubborn person & if truth be told, a rather vain guy.)DGG 00:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at Visual arts deletions

I suggest putting the notice above the nom statement, as it's easier for people to spot. It's a formal content, and not part of the debate as such. Tyrenius 03:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibitions

Please see this and reply there. Thanks. -- Hoary 00:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on image development (visual arts)

I appreciate your participation in the debate over term usage. I see you are a visual artist, who's opinion I have more respect for than a casual observer in the debate. The term "image development" is a real term, regardless of how well the article represents the term. I'd like to know what you think it should mean. Aside from the legalities, should there be an article? Should there be just a disambiguation page? Should it be part of the visual arts article? Oicumayberight 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt

I replied to your replies in thread at Daniel Brandt's 13th AfD nomination.--CastAStone|^(talk) 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth Hacks

You might want to take another look, because I found some non-blog refs.DGG 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good job, noticed that Brandt had something to say in his AfD? Alf^Photoman 00:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

credentials

Thanks! Looks like a vote "free for all" has broken out. Personally I like votes, not as binding but as a way to narrow debate.MikeURL 15:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my misunderstanding

As posted to the AfD talk:

BTW, Alf, sorry if I came on too strong. I was adding your first remark here to my misunderstanding of your reply to jpierreg on the other page and coming up with an opinion of you as biased against Scientologists that might well not be true, and that I would not have made had I not misunderstood your reply to jpierreg. --Justanother 15:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

--Justanother 15:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. anyone who has been through an editorial conference develops a thick skin (smirk) Alf^Photoman 15:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) To explain a bit more; you said "I sees something like former member of .... " and I think that jpierreg may well meet that description so I misunderstood the remark as being directed to him as an ad hominem as in "your vote doesn't really count because you are an ex-Scientologist". A similar argument is often levied wrongfully against me as an active Scientologist in good standing with my Church. I see now that you meant Ms. Schwarz. I don't see it as assuming bad faith so much as a simple misunderstanding. But if you think it was AGF vio then I apologize for doing something that could be interpreted as such, too. --Justanother 16:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing laws

I'm afraid I didn't quite understand your message. You said you "know that these laws don't exist", but subsequently say that "they do" exist? A ecis^Brievenbus 00:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Palliative Medicine

Hello, I cleaned up this article a bit and added a couple references for nondisputed facts. Please review my changes and consider changing your AfD vote. Thanks --Mus Musculus 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Barrymore Halpenny

If you go to Amazon.co.uk and type in Ghost Stations in the books, you will find them. Under Bruce Barrymore Halpenny, you find a list of some of his books and you will find Little Nellie 007. Buy a copy. Buy some of the Ghost Stations Books. You will soon see his Artwork throughout. His Work is there on the Internet, but his name is not, if you see what I mean.

As I said to NawlinWiki, Laugh isn't it. Artists are trying to get on here and one that isn't they want to remove!

The article has been edited to make it conform, so I really don't know what the problem is? I also have some newspaper cuttings from the achieves, so I know the sources are correct. I have done serious research on this. And I think it's hell of an achievement to do a First Day cover at 14 (not 15 as I had incorrectly put). Please review your decision. Thank you.

Goldburg 11:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Michael Jenkins

It has been kept as you wished. Now it needs a massive cleanup! Tyrenius 03:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Badshah Qadri-ul-Chishti Yamani Raichuri

Please read my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Badshah Qadri-ul-Chishti Yamani Raichuri. Does this fix the attribution problem, at least for the interim? I whole-heartedly agree that it needs rewriting. Meanwhile, I have added the three electronic references to the article, although the last one is not very reliable. --Bejnar 04:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda Krinsky

Please reconsider your vote on that AfD: The article is in a dire state but so almost all the articles on Chabad-Lubavitch topics. This man is very very notable. And hopefully I will get round to sorting out the article tomorrow. This nomination is absurd as this google news achive shows. His role as the right hand man and spokesman of Schneerson for 40 years and his stewardship of the organisation for the past 13 years makes him notable, not only the 165 newspaper articles, dozens of scholarly articles and books he is cited in. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=Fujiprocess

you might be interst in the AfD discussions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watergraph and /Fuji_transfer DGG 02:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perfectlt right. tnx. Alf^Photoman 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pubs

As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on List of publications in philosophy and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found here. Thanks. - KSchutte 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hucko AfD, take 2

Hello,

I nominated Mark Hucko for deletion again. Previous AfD was closed as "no consensus". In the meantime the sources for the article have not become any better and it is still unverifiable.

Your opinion will be appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hucko (2nd nomination).

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 12:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanphobia

I noticed you participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Pakistani sentiment. The article Anti-Pakistani sentiment was eventually moved to Pakistanphobia. Now Pakistanphobia has been nominated for deletion. I thought you might be interested in participating in the AfD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistanphobia. Feel free to come by and contribute your thoughts.Bless sins (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Chuk

Hi just letting you know that the Mathew Chuk article is up for deletion yet again.Graham treadman (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gno nega.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Gno nega.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Gno nega.jpg

The file File:Gno nega.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Fra1 col Alb.jpg

The file File:Fra1 col Alb.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]