User talk:DreamBeliever2238
License tagging for Image:AvoniteBuilding.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:AvoniteBuilding.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. 10:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Avonite
[edit]A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Avonite, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Kevin 03:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Copyright problems with Image:AvoniteKitchen.jpg
[edit]
Copyright problems with Image:AvoniteBuilding.jpg
[edit]
That's not the way wikipedia works
[edit]Please contact me if you have a problem with this information. Any other changes will be considered vandalism and not in the best interest of public information. All information is verified. amounts to a threat (that edits you disagree with will be considered vandalism). Be advised that seeking to "own" an article is contrary to settled policy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No threats, merely verified information
[edit]Dear Tagishsimon, As my father is the recognized inventor of the Mood Ring, I have posted what I know to be the history of the product as well as any additional information. The reason I requested that others contact me before making extensive changes is because it has been my perception here on Wiki that people just like to see their name in print and make changes to entries without having any substance behind them. After months of such changes, the entry and the information contained therein are essentially worthless. You, or anyone, certainly have every right to make any entries that they would like, but I wonder why one would feel it necessary, unless they are an expert in the field and have personal knowledge of such subjects. Respectfully yours, T.Wernick ~~ DreamBeliever2238 ~~
- Wikipedia does not work on claims of personal knowledge. And Wikipedia has very pronounced views on conflict on interest - which you would appear to have. See WP:COI.
- The bottom line is, you need to be able to cite reputable sources before adding data to the entry. See WP:RS Making pseudoscience clams, as you have done in the sentence "When people undergo stress, their surface body temperature drops. This is represented in the mood ring's color phasing from the neutral green to amber, to grey, to black. Conversely, a passionate mood causes one's capillaries to move closer to the surface, raising surface temperature." devalues the encyclopedia greatly.
- Your edits will continue to be reverted if they fail WP:RS. If you continue to push your belief system in the absence of such supporting evidence, you will eventually lose your editing privileges.
- I will not condescend to comment on your specious assertion "people just like to see their name in print" comments, beyond noting that people's names are not associated with content in articles. Indeed you appear to be the only person who has added a name - your own - to that article. Odd, huh? --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to add my support to Tagishsimon. I see from your "User contributions" page that you've only been working on Wikipedia in very narrow areas (just four articles) and over a very short period of time (two days last September and a couple of days this year) - so it's not at all surprising that you don't understand the maze of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have over 10,000 edits to my name - and I'm still learning!
- You have admitted a conflict of interest - thanks for your honesty. WP:COI has very clear statements on this matter. You should immediately stop editing the Mood Ring article. Feel free to provide suggestions on the talk page, however - and any document references you can provide on the subject would be GREATLY appreciated. But direct edits to the article are not allowed if you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia doesn't operate by having "experts" write articles - it works by having editors with a decent grasp of the English language and good document search skills to find information in reputable source documents and to turn those into well-written prose with references back to the original source material wherever possible.
- But even without that, your efforts to portay the 'fringe theory' that mood rings somehow do actually work are quite contrary to current Wikipedia policy. We're required to present the mainstream scientific view on all scientific matters. You can read about this policy in our policy document: WP:FRINGE.
- We know (and I think you agree) that mood rings change color because they use thermochromic liquid crystal to display temperature. We know that the amount of variation of temperature due to what happens inside your body is very narrow...about one degree centigrade (unless you are sick). There are NO peer reviewed scientific papers that I could find that back up the fringe theory that your mood causes your body temperature to change (and certainly not by enough for the rather crude liquid crystal thermometers to measure). Furthermore, the ring is exposed to the air as well as being in contact with your skin. That means that it's reflecting some sort of average of skin temperature and air temperature - so it's really showing how you set your thermostat a lot more than your body temperature. Even if your body temperature DID change with your mood - the difference in "normal" body temperature between individuals, as a function of time of day and as a function of menstrual cycles in women means that no simple relationship between color and mood could ever be determined because that relationship would be different in the morning and in the evening - and it would depend on what "time of the month" it is for women.
- The bottom line is that mood rings are a fun toy for kids and a great talking point - but they have absolutely no basis in science...they cannot POSSIBLY read your mood. By all means tell the general public anything you like in advertising and promoting this product (to the extent that the law allows) - but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we have a responsibility to state the truth and to back that up with documentary evidence...which is undoubtedly that mood rings are rather crude thermometers and they don't accurately measure body temperature - and that even if they did, your body temperature really doesn't change as a function of mood - and therefore, mood rings flat out don't work as claimed.
- If you can provide a reference to a peer reviewed article in a recognized scientific journal that says that capilliaries on your finger do this and that under this and that mood situation and that this changes the temperature of the skin on your finger by several degrees - then we'll be more than happy to amend the article - but I was unable to find anything like that after an extensive online document search. So all we have to go on is what you say - and your interests are strongly conflicted.
- We simply cannot trust your (quite natural) desire to see your fathers' reputation maintained in the face of the proven scientific facts.
Hello, DreamBeliever2238, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!
I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Avonite, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
- edit the page
- remove the text that looks like this:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}} - save the page
It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 00:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Avonite 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/Avonite until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 00:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The file File:Robert Shook book.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) 01:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
