User talk:Jonadark

HoloVID

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article HoloVID, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:HoloVID. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Srleffler 08:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the cleanup tags from HoloVID until you have addressed the concern identified by the tag. For example the article does not meet WP:MOS and hence the {{wikify}} tag has been placed at the top of the article, and there are no articles linking to this one, so {{linkless}} has been added. Thanks, Rich257 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving to make aesthetic changes to the article while also modifying the controversial 'commercial' feel of the original posting. The WP:MOS is a guideline, but I sincerely appreciate the examples. I will continue to peruse other articles for hints, on how to best present the data on the HoloVid page... I'm sure that given some further efforts, the material will be presented in a clear, concise and informative manner. Thank you for your critiques.... I AM NOW IN PROGRESS. .... jonadark, 11-6-'06

Please do not remove cleanup tags until the problems they flag have been fixed. Better yet, work on fixing the problems and allow someone else to remove the tags.

"Guideline" is a stronger statement than you may have assumed. Articles are expected to comply with the Guidelines. This is not a big deal, though. There are lots of editors here who can help get the article into compliance with the Manual of Style, once we pass the point where it's clear that the article won't be deleted. The tags are there to alert editors who enjoy doing particular kinds of cleanup work that there is an article here that needs some editing. Don't take them as criticism...--Srleffler 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually been meaning to come by and write a longer explanation of what is going on here, since the process may be a bit unfamiliar. First, by removing the "prod" (proposed deletion) tag, you successfully contested the quick deletion of the article. This buys time (a few days, maybe) to improve the article to the standard where it won't be deleted. The article doesn't have to be perfect; it doesn't even have to be very good. What is needed, though, is it has to be clear that there is the beginning of an encyclopedia article here, and not an advertisement, etc. We generally discourage people from writing about themselves or their own work, because it is actually very hard to produce a good article without bias on something you care deeply about.

Most of the cleanup tags on the article do not bear on the question of deletion, so don't worry about them too much. The things that are required for the article to stay, are that it must be neutral (unbiased), it must not be original research (more on this below), and the subject of the article must be notable. Neutral point of view ("NPOV") is a simple concept, but there are some subtleties, and it is actually quite hard to do in practice when you're writing about your own work. In the end, the article is going to need input from other writers, even if you don't like what they have to say.

Now, as to "original research", the rule is that the information in the article may not come from your own knowledge of the system alone. Everything in the article must appear in published sources. This is an important rule, in fact an official policy of Wikipedia. We are a tertiary source (like all encyclopedias). We publish about what others have written in public, verifiable media. If you can provide citations to back up things you put in the article, so much the better. (I see that you have been doing this already.)

Finally, the subject of the article (since it is a product) has to be notable. Check out the linked guideline for details, but the gist of it is that people other than you have to have published something about HoloVID. Reprinted press releases don't count. HoloVID is interesting enough that it might survive even without this, but generally articles on products get deleted if they cannot be shown to meet the notability requirement.

The last two requirements are related to the policy on verifiability. If we can't verify the truth of the information you provide in independent sources, we can't accept it. If no one has published anything about HoloVID, it isn't suitable for a Wikipedia article. Not because it's not worthy, but simply because we can only accept material that can be verified.

That's pretty much the end of "how not to get deleted". I do need to comment on the pictures, though. The splash with your email address and/or name across the pictures is just not acceptable for Wikipedia. It's too commercial—it makes the article look too much like an advertising flyer. If you can upload new versions of the photos without the banner, please do. I'll be requesting deletion of these images soon. Finally, the "(all rights reserved)" in the captions is not acceptable, because it again makes the article look unencyclopedic. Licensing information goes on the image description pages. Wikipedia takes copyrights extremely seriously, and only uses content that we have properly licensed. I see that when you uploaded the images, you chose to release them under the Gnu Free Documentation License (GFDL). This legally licenses the public, quite broadly, to use these images as they see fit. You have few rights left to reserve. I am concerned that the "all rights reserved" may indicate that you have misunderstood the terms under which you were licensing your work. If you have made an error and did not intend to release these images under this license we need to get them deleted as quickly as possible. If this is the case, please put the text {{helpme}} on your talk page, followed by a description of the help you need (how to get the pictures deleted quickly.) Someone will come and help you.

Sorry if all this seems adversarial. It isn't meant to be. I'm actually quite interested in the HoloVID, and hope to see it become a good encyclopedia article. If you have any questions for me, feel free to ask them here. I'll keep an eye on this page for a while.--Srleffler 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to support an earlier point by Srleffler, I am happy to help formatting the article, but obviously not if it's going to be deleted. I wonder how much of the information is specific to the HoloVID product and how much is about this type of instrument in general? If the article talked more about the instrument type then it would appear to be less of an advertising piece. Rich257 13:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isogrid webbing

By the way, what is "internal isogrid webbing"? The occurrence of this phrase in the first sentence was a large part of why I put the "context" tag on the article. Usually the first sentence (or first few) of an encyclopedia article are aimed at the general reader, who may know little about spacecraft technology.--Srleffler 03:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all HoloVID images

I would like to immediately! delete ALL of the pictures and diagrams from the HoloVID page and completely! from all data held at and for WIKI. I will then rethink, just how to go about them otherwise. Thanks!

I tagged the images for deletion and changed their license tags to indicate that they are copyrighted. An administrator will hopefully come by and delete them before long.--Srleffler 20:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have added a welcome message below with more information about contributing to Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 20:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonadark, the article probably doesn't need so many pictures anyway. You might want to pick just one or two pictures that you don't mind releasing under a public license. A nice, clean (no text) photo of the device for the top of the article would be good. We usually like to have an appealing and informative image in the upper right corner of an article, where possible. A diagram that illustrates how it works (if this is publicly available knowledge) might also be useful.--Srleffler 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Jonadark! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- —Centrx→talk • 20:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

American Physical Society

Hi there. I've reverted your addition to the above article for several reasons; notably, your addition is highly not neutral, and appears to be highly opinionated in its presentation. I suggest finding some better sources and re-reading the neutral point of view guidelines prior to re-adding. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your addition again. Please read the NPOV as above, and cease adding this material to the article in this manner. It is not neutral, it is entirely original research, and it is not encyclopedic. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay. One more time. Declaring that "angry marxist-feminists" are doing things someplace when your source says NOTHING of the sort is NOT NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. If you have sources - proper news sources, not "Retraction Watch," which does not appear to be a good source - then use those, write a neutral section for this article from them, and stay away from declaring people to be some political segment that you obviously disagree with. I'll be having some other folks look this over to keep an eye on it. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry the truth is so painful to you, but either WIKI allows truth or covers up the truth... which do you choose? It is ANGRY FEMINISTS who changed the piece originally published by APS. Pure political motivation. If you use the Retraction Watch links to read the pages of the detractors, you will see clearly their position. I am guessing your issue is purely political also, so they changed a major association's opinions with their political outcry and you are stopping the public from knowing about this due to your own political assertions... I get it, but I will publish this out there on the net and include your dismay as a demonstration of bias... so help me get the TRUTH on the page, or step aside. Thanks.

oh...kay. I don't give a flying goddamn either way, dude, I'm working to enforce Wikipedia's guidelines. Feel free to do whatever you want with the article; I'm at the three-revert limit, but have advised the Physics wikiproject to check in on the article, and will be happy to get some other administrators involved. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, let's get everyone involved... either Wiki allows political rhetoric that affects history to be reported, or Wiki serves a censorship bias filled PC establishment that wants people not to be profoundly affected by the actual events of our time. Have all detractors contact me, I'll make sure my email is current, thanks.

Hi Jona, I'm going to make this really simple for you. If you keep it up with the POV edit warring, you're going to be blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those things is true, Jona. Wikipedia is not a platform for political rhetoric of any kind. We report information that has been previously published in reliable sources, and that's it. We don't care about political correctness, nor do we care about affecting public opinion one way or another on any issue. We do care quite a lot about statements being supported by references to reliable sources, and more generally that all content in articles is verifiable with reference to such sources.--Srleffler (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I included sources for the statements given. The APS page itself with the original congratulations, was edited and the original post over written so as to eliminate further conversation. I can send you the email response I received from the APS CEO is you like, which confirmes everything in the paragraph published, including her expressing her embarrassment. Give me a place to send it if it will get us over this controversy. Meanwhile everything I wrote is 100% true and extremely important in the recounting of the history of the APS. 06:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS for information on what kinds of sources are required, and WP:NPOV for information on required writing style and tone. Truth is not sufficient. Wikipedia requires verifiability. If we can't verify it, we don't publish it.--Srleffler (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]