User talk:Dan Van Carloads

Welcome!

Hello, Dan Van Carloads, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Stott's Theorem of The Pictorial Condition, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Pontificalibus 09:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stott's Theorem of The Pictorial Condition

The article Stott's Theorem of The Pictorial Condition has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet the general notability guideline

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pontificalibus 09:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Stott's Theorem of The Pictorial Condition for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stott's Theorem of The Pictorial Condition is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stott's Theorem of The Pictorial Condition until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Pontificalibus 10:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you press 'Scholar' the paper on transcendental imaging comes up of Philpapers archive. if you google 'transcendental imaging' there are more than one links, one to philpapers, one to intellect books, and one or two to a blog.

The paper was peer-reviewed in an academic journal so more than one person, validated by a third party (philpapers) and explanatory drawings with text validated by a fourth party, the UK Patent Office i.e conformed to UK Government standard guidelines for UK patent app. publication.

If one has a statement such as 1+1=2 validated for example then putting that on Wikipedia is not self-promotion as it is presenting firts and foremost '1+1=2' and not the person.

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Dan Van Carloads, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Dan Van Carloads. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Transcendental Imaging, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stott's_Theorem_of_The_Pictorial_Condition, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Please stop your incessant promotion of your own interests, and stop attacking other editors. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing concerns

Dear Peter

I'm sorry you felt the need to accuse me of being some sort of troll, out to create mischief and to cause you grief (diff). The reality couldn't be more different, as I believe I always try to act with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, whilst you, on the other hand, appear to me to have only the self-promotion of your theories, patents and publications at heart (see single purpose account). What frustrates me is that you don't seem willing to accept or act on the advice or the consensus of other more experienced editors, but continue to want to promote your ideas in your own argumentative way. I would politely suggest that Wikipedia is not the place for you to do that, and that you should wait until the wider world has taken note of your ideas and theories and others have written about them, in depth and in detail in such a manner that Wikipedia can look at those secondary sources and agree that Stott's Theorem of The Pictorial Condition is, indeed, a noteworthy topic for this great encyclopaedia. Wikipedia doesn't care that you've published a paper in a peer reviewed journal or have paid to register a patent on some obscure topic. It only cares about topics that it deems Notable, based upon what others, independent of you, have written about it in reliable sources. Until that happens, my advice is that you turn your attention to editing articles with which you are not so intimately involved, and to cease trying to use Wikipedia to push your name and your ideas forward. If you cannot accept that, then you should consider editing in another environment entirely.

Do please read and act upon Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to declare the connection of this account with the author of that theorem. You have made a number of statements (here and here) indicating they are one and the same and, if that is indeed so, we require you to make a clear declaration (either on your userpage or on the talk pages of the connected articles). Precisely how you do that is explained in the guideline I have just linked to, and you have already been asked by another editor to make such a declaration. Better still, avoid editing any page you have a direct personal or professional interest in promoting, instead making any suggested edit by means of an [[WP:EDITREQ|edit request for an unconnected editor to make on your behalf, if appropriate.

I note that you reverted my removal of your self-promoting image and accompanying explanation from the Impossible trident page, but I do thank you for doing the right thing by leaving a comment about that on the article's Talk page. You will see that another editor subsequently reverted your reinsertion, and that I have responded to you on that page, asking you not to try to re-add it unless you gain consensus from other editors to do so. (In case you hadn't yet realised, this is how we operate here, so do listen to the opinions of experienced editors, please, try not to get angry when they're trying to resolve problems, and never lay in to other editors by levelling unfounded accusation against them personally).

In that vein, I would offer you the following words of advice:

Remember to add a heading when you start a new topic on a talk page;
Remember to sign all your talk page posts. You do that by typing four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~);
Remember you still need to make that WP:COI declaration;
If you have concerns about the action of any editor that you cannot resolve, you may report them - including me- to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which we refer to as WP:ANI. Bear in mind that your own editing behaviour will of course be scrutinised just as much as those editors you may be complaining about. And I do not fancy your chances.
Please read the following policies and guidelines which may help you understand why you are currently crashing head-first into a battle to promote your personal theories which you are unlikely to win, and could very soon result in you being blocked from further editing as not being here to constructively build an encyclopaedia: These are: Notability guidelines; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources. There is also an interesting essay on Wikipedia:Single-purpose account which is relevant to how you appear to be presenting yourself, namely that you suggest you are unconnected with the person and their theories.

I hope you find this feedback of some assistance. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nick, Thankyou for your concerns. I'm in the invidious position of having my knowledge excluded from society at large because the art world is a massive cultural cartel on a completely different tack to actual knowledge transfer, believe it or not. If you apply for a job you've got to be interested in 'de-colonising thought' etc. it's all about social and poltical rather than knowledge-based activity because it's a vague never ending subject. A woman did a PhD in Fine Art at Chelsea School of Art in London on what it's like to be a Brazilian woman in London. If you'd seen the Turner Prize it's about sociology workshops and social media not fine art. It's impossible to get new knowledge into culture because you can't say anything new unless somebody has already said it, it's all second-hand stuff. One of the reasons I made a patent application was as a peice of art about knowledge transfer because it's a theoretical model of 'objective' subjectivity, hence 'artifificial imaginatio'n i.e describing a pictorial matrix based on the rules of perspective as a universe of geometric possibility as a computational model of an 'imagination' regarding possible novel scene creation with CGI. This was the basis for my article and it is now on a recognised accredited website. E-flux journal is massive and Hans Ulrich Obrist is one of the world's biggest curators, although he hasn't championed this art piece, again he's promoting the cartel of artists, it's a closed shop. The days of Wittgenstein handing in the tractatus, with no qualifications about his points, no references, no nooes and no bibliography are a long way away from the un-connected folk. I'm endeavouring to pass knwoeldge on and simple fact-based knowledge at that. I think the patent app. is a significant work of art,meanwhile the Turner prize is won by a girl filming herself about what it's like to be a lesbian and she ironically will get a page about her on wikipedia, promoted by her gallery or connections or the fact that she's been ushered through AS NOTABLE!!!!!!!! I'm the victim of philisinism where one does something notable and the world shuns it. I can't do as you say and put that link to the page, again you say don't do it. Perhaps YOU COULD DO IT and then I won't be accused of self-promotion. Is Einstein coming to the conclusion that E=MC squared self-promotion??????? Have a look yourself and a think and same with the impossible trident solution. It's a really important addition to the page and I own the copyright as the artist of the solution so I can be the only one to put it on.It's catch-22 and again I can't put it on with the bracket because I will be accused of self-promotion again. The page nwo known as 'transcendental imaging' (I preferred to use the pictorial condition) is a really basic theoretical model and the article is on PhilPapers, it's 1+1=2 stuff HENCE nobody will go near it in the art world BECAUSE it's SOMETHING REALLY OBVIOUS and nobody has ever said it. It's embarassing for the academic art community to accept it. They can't bring themselves to accept that they've overlooked it. Because it provides a context for all 2D data fields, that's not what Asia wants to hear because it's the rules of perspective over their visual culture. They just can't accept Western knowledge as being applicable to their cultural production, so persona non grata the rules of perspective applied. If you think that bracket should go somewhere, I won't know where to put it, so I'll leave that to somebody else, you decide, I can only say what I've written. I'll have a look again in 2019 and see what prevailed and what, then. I won't sign in again till then or attempt to alter anything. Merry Christmas and HNY for 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Van Carloads (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your reply. I will keep this short as I'm now editing on a mobile phone. I do understand your predicament, and your frustration with us here. You put your finger on it when you said: "It's impossible to get new knowledge into culture because you can't say anything new unless somebody has already said it", for that is exactly how Wikipedia works. We do not present new ideas, new thoughts, new theories and new inventions, but have to wait until those items have been observed, discussed and written about by others before we can collate and curate that information and present it here in this encyclopedia. It often frustrates me that minor here-today-gone-tomorrow TV reality show celebrities, pokemon characters, wrestlers and sportsteam members get articles about them accepted, based upon our notability criteria, whereas men and women of science and culture - especially those who lived in the pre-online era - simply do not have the independent coverage of their achievements that allows us to judge them as notable enough for Wikipedia. That's not to suggest that their contributions are insignificant; it is merely that Wikipedia cannot reflect their work until we have those independent sources covering their lives and their achievements. I wish you well for Christmas and the New Year too, and thank you for your enthusiasm to improve Wikipedia, despite the frustrations you have encountered this week. Kind regards from the East Midlands. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm presenting isn't new knowledge though. The fact of the pictorial condition has been around for 600 years!!!!!!!! '2D shape represents architectonic form' is the most ubiquitous known thing in the whole of art. I'm only stating the obvious, both in the patent app. 'transcendental imaging' and in the 'impossible trident solution.' It's just the application of the basic and describing the scope of the basic fact. Nothing else. it's notable to be in the top 5% of academic papers read on PhilPapers, to be on e-flux's website, to be no.1 on google bing and yahoo, that is the pinnacle of notablity.'

I wasn't going to go on this till after Christmas but I saw your message. Anyway, eat f drink and be merry and think about something else! :-)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Dan Van Carloads! You created a thread called Stott's Theorem of the Pictorial Condition at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page to 'transcendental imaging' because it's an s established term. I wasn't sure what to do with links, I left them.