User talk:Girolamo Savonarola/Archive 1

Welcome

Here are some tips to help you get started:

If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
Read the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

The Status of Protest on Wikipedia

Wikipedia it seems does not delineate between freedom of expression and the right to protest and vandalism. Wikipedia is supposed to be a viable source of information. In my mind it must also be an "appropriate" source of information. But if we can't conduct peaceful, nonviolent protests on the texts of actual articles which people find disturbing (i.e. queef) what kind of message are we sending across to people who wish to protest but find themselves being blocked as a result of what editors consider "vandalism". I agree with the sentiments expressed by some that a template that has been termed as "nonsense" (Wiki-Protest) should be allowed in order for editors, WPs, and contributors to protest what they consider as harsh, racist, or inappropriate wikipedia articles in a manner outside of the normal spectrum for wikipedia. What do you all think about this? A friend of mine was blocked recently for participating in this kind of protest. -- Dominick_Turner

Movie Projector

Thanks for the great additions to the article. I had exhausted what little knowlege I had - most of this was from observation. I did work as assistant to the projectionist in a projection booth (with warning bells on the feed reels) at Naval Air Technical Training Center, Memphis while an Airman Apprentice student, for one week - lots better than Messhall duty. Perhaps you have access to some pictures or diagrams of equipment? I've thought that at least a side image of a B&H 16mm would be helpful as a starter. With a few pictures I think it would be worth submitting for a featured article, as I think it is now complete. Leonard G. 02:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah, it's no problem. Lucky thing I'm an insomniac! Don't doubt you on the warning bells; I've heard about them, but never seen them in the booths here (London). I have access to five 35mm projectors here, and I could probably dig up some diagrams if need be (although I should probably read up on fair use policy here first).

Also, I know that there's a lot there already, but I think that there's still plenty of info that can be supplied, at least theoretically. I have had a general projectionist's manual by my side here for reference while working on the article, and it's pretty thick (although admittedly often too technical for general encyclopedic breadth and depth). My advice for what the article needs, along with at least a few pictures, is some mostly minor reorganization to make the one and two sentence sections either more meaty or folded into other sections. And I have to admit that sometimes my writing is a bit heavy - fair warning! In any case, it would be great to have it as a featured article! I'll try to get some visuals just for that alone. --Girolamo Savonarola 02:52, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

A local science museum has an Omnimax and the projector is on an elevator. When down, the projector is visible behind glass, and when up and operating the film can be seen racing up and down. I'll get some pictures this fall. By the way, wikipedia discourages the use of article names and famous personages from use as user names - it can make it awkward to know what is being talked about (perhaps that is your actual name). Best wishes, Leonard G. 02:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if you'll be able to get any good pictures that way, but it might be worth just asking ahead of time if you can speak to the projectionist and request a tour of the facilities. Oftentimes they're more than happy to, given the right time. Thanks for the policy tipoff; I honestly had no idea at the time. But as it is, I think I'm just too lazy to change it. --Girolamo Savonarola 02:15, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Grand Buffet

Thanks for erasing my personal attack on VFD. I went back to delete it myself and saw that you beat me to it. I've seen a lot of people go off on VFD and it always causes them to lose support. —Teknic^Talk/Mail 15:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plato works (naming convention)

See: Category talk:Dialogues of Plato#Remarks of Savonarola where I replied to the remarks you gave on my user page --Francis Schonken 08:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles

Hi, please do not move articles manually like that. If you want to move an article, you can click the "move" tab. Adam Bishop 03:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meno (Plato)

Why did you move this? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the changes to conform articles on Plato's dialogues to the WP:NC. See Category_talk:Dialogues_of_Plato. But to answer your question specifically, there is no article that takes up the Meno name, so it seems a bit superfluous to force a parenthetical qualifier on it, much less one that doesn't comply with the naming conventions. Meno (dialogue) would be logical, but again, makes no sense in the absence of a Meno article. I'm moving it again; I'd like to request that you don't start a move reversion again without at least joining the discussion at large regarding the naming scheme proposed. Thanks! --Girolamo Savonarola 11:18, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

If I'd been given a chance to join in the discssion before you started moving articles, I might have taken your request more seriously. Yours, however, is virtually a unilateral decision, and has no consensus authority behind it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I agree. Let's continue the discussion on the Category_talk:Dialogues_of_Plato page. --Girolamo Savonarola 20:54, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Hi. I noticed that you're using {{del}} for speedy deletes. It's a good idea to use {{db|reason}} to let us know your reason for the request. Thanks, hydnjo talk 1 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

Of course, you should use whatever template you think is appropriate for a particular page. ;-) hydnjo talk 1 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)

Thinspiration

I'm not sure why you added a {{del}} tag to this article, but it's not an appropriate tag. This article is almost certainly a copyright violation (author's name and title are given, and Google suggests Suburban Chicago News as its source), and so should be tagged as a {{copyvio}}, which I have done. I would strongly suggest you use the {{db|''reason''}} tag rather than the {{del}} tag, so that you can provide a reason for your speedy request. Denni ☯ 2005 July 1 20:40 (UTC)

Terence Davies

Belated as I realise this is, thank you for your work on the Terence Davies page. --Chips Critic 18:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance

With reference to your comment "As would some familiarity with how this site is run" at WP:RFPP, if you have any specific questions at all, feel free to ask me on my talk page. I don't bite. :-) Dmcdevit·t 09:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, well :) You may try an RFC or WP:3O if only to get more people in there looking at that. Definitely want to be careful in featured articles. Dmcdevit·t 09:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article camera magazine, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Your user page...

galaxia.ytmnd.com You've obviously seen The Ring. Danny Lilithborne 22:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Criterion Collection

The category you created has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Criterion Collection. Feel free to add to the discussion there. - Bobet 18:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely disappointed by the outcome of this discussion.Hektor 02:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test

"Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Girolamo Savonarola 01:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)"

Hi, I'm not sure which "test" you are refering to. Please post some more info on my talk page. Thanks. Kernow 15:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks for the info. Kernow 15:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film stock

Hello, thanks for the heads up. The funny thing is, I don't recall making changes to the Ext links section! I think what may have happened is I started editing from your edit "lots of cleanup and new info..." and thereby rolled back the links. My mistake. Time to go take a nap =) - mako 01:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

Saying you will block someone could be considered to be personal attack. I did it once and a admin told me to not say that. Just an FYI. Cheers :)--Slipknot 2 22 18:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but, everyone will handle him, I would just tell an Admin. --Slipknot 2 22 00:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me

... to wrap up my comments on your Film Formats article. I've now done so. I've been wrapped up in Japan, which may be ready for peer review soon. Best regards Fg2 01:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Steven Lasher

Improper of your to vote the deletion of John Steven Lasher. You obviously hold a grudge against him. Contact me at vox_melba@yahoo.com.au to further discuss. Jeremy Sefton-Parke. --originally posted on user page by Kinopanorama widescreen

Claim of sockpuppet for John Steven Lasher

Dear Sir,

Kinopanorama widescreen is not a sockpoppet for vox_melba. The original article for Mr Lasher was authored by Sarah Clarke. When she noted the deletion she asked me to intervene.

I logged onto wiki under the kinopanorama widesscreen account, and proceeded to author a new article which was more relevent to Mr Lasher's accomplishements.

Your admonishments are not acceptable, in so far as in reading other comments about the bio it appears that you are bent on Mr Lasher, and that your bias, real or imagined, is unacceptable.

I would suggest that you temper your comments, and that you do not block further entries from my self. By the by, Mr Lasher, who is away on a film project, is unaware of the deletions or edits.

Contact me direct at kinopanorama@msn.com to further discuss the matter.

Jeremy Sefton-Parke--Kinopanorama widescreen 02:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Steven Lasher

I will repeat myself, Signore.

Mr Lasher did not author the page. I did. So, it is not an authbiography.

Secondly, you state that his bio is not a noteable entry. You are wrong. I again refer you to google for complete list of his accomplishments.

Jeremy Sefton-Parke--Kinopanorama widescreen 02:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Steven Lasher

Neither I or Sarah Clarke work for Mr Lasher. Sarah works for Didgeridoo Records. She is interested in his film work and purchases the recordings he produces.

I own Vox Melba Mastering Labs. Mr Lasher has designed a cylinder reproducer for my company. Mr Lasher is, therefore, a contracted employee; not the other way around, as you wrongly state.--Kinopanorama widescreen 03:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lasher afd

Thanks for your research. Unfortunately, it's my opinion that even though the initial creation of the page was severely flawed, an article starting out badly is no reason in and of itself for deletion. Cleanup and wikification, of course, but not deletion. With that said, the tide has obviously turned on the vote, and the page will in all likelyhood be deleted. I shan't lose any sleep over it. Lankiveil 13:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

John Steven Lasher removal as requested

Many thanks for your prompt removal of my name as per my request. jslasher@hotmail.com

Cex

What sparked my concern was that the intro appears to be about a high school kid who doesn't have a WP entry, and of all the releases at the bottom only one is bluelinked, and that link is to an uncontextual target. I did see some stuff on google that made me change my mind (including a decent amazon rank) but the article could make it clearer from the off that this is a notable project / band / musician. I have to say I mistook it for in good faith for an elaborate hoax / vanity the first time round. As for the redlinks, they are discouraged by the WP style manual, and a notable recording artist will usually have entries about his individual albums. Cheers Deizio 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of film formats

I just saw this article, and I have to saw - WOW! Amazing stuff - keep up the good work. Megapixie 00:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depth of View

Thanks for your correction of my mistake confusing depth of view and focus. Keep up the good work! -- Tompsci 09:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinopanorama Aspect Radio

In re the List of Film Formats. The overlap radio may be determined by a visual inspection of the film frames. Please refer to the discussion page in re my comments. Therefore, if you wish to verify this info I can post the aforementioned work-print strips of film to you.--Jslasher 08:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinopanorama Aspect Ratios: Further Comments

Dear Girolamo,

I appreciate your lightening-fast responses. Honesty, what I have loaded on the website (technical specs) is the original information supplied in the Dr Michael Hayes book on 'Wide Screen Films'. As previously stated, it is quite possible (I would say, definately possible, given that Dr Hayes -- ask Martin Hart -- is more often wrong and not) that some of the specs are wrong.

So, given that you have taken interest in this matter, I would like to suggest that you have a closer look at the specs, advising me of any errors that you deem worthy of correction, and I will ask my webmaster (who is a local student) to correct them asap. However, a close perusal of the work-prints would assist in the verifications.--Jslasher 09:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinopanorama Tech Specs: Your Reply.

Dear Girolamo,

Thanks for the specifications. I will download the corrections, based on the information you have given me in my User Talk page. However, please be patient about this, as I have not the foggiest idea how to make corrections on a webpage. I will leave it to Damien, my webpage designer at the local Broken Hill newspapaer, to do that for me.

I DO (emphasis mine) have all of the Soviet technical documents (some 4 books) on the Kinopanorama, so if there is anyone at U C Berkeley who speaks good Russian, I can certainly scan the pages on the technical specs and I can email them to you as attachements. That might further clear-up the questions still "hanging overhead".

I have the diagrams for the 9-channel magnetic films, and can confirm that your configuration is accurate.

As for the work-prints in question — they are only a year old, so I can assure you that they would not have shrunk. I pulled the "Chastity, Truth and Kinopanorama" camera negatives (SVEMA Sovcolor) from the vaults last Friday, since I will re-editing these for a new print (with a new prologue, which explains my decision to re-introduce Kinopanorama in 1993). If you wish, when I have struck the answer-prints later on, I can submit some footage to you. Let me know.--Jslasher 09:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hart

Actually, Martin Hart, despite many requests from a former colleague, asking him to proof and correct the very info you have so kindly given me, never replied. Besides, Martin and I don't much care for each other on a personal level (politics, you know). So, Girolamo, it is you to whom I now turn.--Jslasher 09:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

There does seem to be some funny business going on there for sure; I've made some comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Hit the Button Marked "Booze"!

Yo, G!

Appreciate your efforts. Really, I do.

Doesn't seem to be working, though.

What's wrong with these guys? Don't they know a "Delete" when they see it?

Nice work on the lenses, and such. Very meticulous. Could be useful.

Cheers.

Kinopanorama Tech Specs: Corrections and Quiries.

Dan Sherlock has had a look at the specs which I downloaded on the Kinopanorama webpage as per your previous input. He is at odds with several specs stated by you, and has asked that you clarify them. Please email him direct to discuss this, as I would like to implement whatever changes are necessary without delay. Also, I am informed that your name is a nom de plume on Wiki. Therefore, a notatation will be inserted on the forthcoming corrections.--Jslasher 23:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding example 4:3 TV extract to the super35 comparison diagram

Someone has suggested on the Super 35 talk page that a example 4:3 extract be added to the diagram. I was going to make the change - can you take a look at the extract area on http://modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/AV/FilmToVideo/ and confirm that is correct - is Super35 normally framed at with the 2.35:1 area at the top of the frame ?

Thanks Megapixie 13:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie shutters

Hi there. I've added a comment at Talk:Movie projector. I see that you have worked on this article. It would be great if you could check my comments and check my linking to the article and the movie projector definition I added to the disambiguation page at shutter. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also moved shutter angle to rotary disc shutter, as this was linked from the shutter (photography) article, and I thought it looked like the right article. However, I wanted to check with people who know about movie projectors. Was this the right thing to do? Carcharoth 11:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LoTR film lengths

If you want to refer to the length of the films by their extended lengths, please could you alter the start of the article where it gives the run time of the films? It could say the time for both normal and extended releases. I would do it myself, but I have no idea how long the extended versions are as I don't have them. Cheers! --Tim ^{(talk), (contribs)} 10:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Then There Were None

I thought the spoiler was still there. ????

Are you refering to the paragraph I deleted? I see you retored it. Why? The information in that paragraph is a repetition of the information in the paragraph before it. Why say the same thing twice? -- Jason Palpatine 22:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3(+)-hour films

Hi Girolamo, good catch on A Star is Born (why didn't I see that, when it's right there in the S films?) and The Leopard (although that's listed under T! Shouldn't it be under L? This seems to be a common weirdness in the various film listings, to list titles beginning with "The" under T, titles beginning with "A" or "An" under A, etc.). :) Z Wylld 20:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]