User talk:Warren Allen Smith

License tagging for Image:Fmeliot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fmeliot.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. 04:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Carl Sagan link

Hi, I tried that link you posted for Carl Sagan at philosopedia.com but it's just a blank page. That's why the other editor removed it. Cgingold 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is meant by 'Your links are bad'. To sign your posts, follow the instructions at the bottom of the editing window. Michaelbusch 04:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Albert E. Avey

A tag has been placed on Albert E. Avey, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Betaeleven 14:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits and a note about a minor editing error you are making

Hello Warren Allen Smith -- Thank you for the many helpful and interesting contributions you have been making to Wikipedia. I have been intrigued by your personal correspondence with notable people, which sheds significant light on the lives and times of these individuals. Please permit me to point out a particular minor editing error which you have made repeatedly. When editing the text of articles, or when creating new articles, it is contrary to Wikipedia practice to insert your name and the date/time of your edit into the body of the text itself. Each of your edits typically concludes with something like "Warren Allen Smith 22:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)". You are probably producing this information by typing four tildes (~~~~ at the end of your edit. You should not do this. Just type the new text and you are done. (The 4 tildes are intended to be used only when you chat with other editors on the Talk pages.) Respectfully -- WikiPedant 05:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Appignani4.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Appignani4.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Iamunknown 06:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Arthur C. Clarke

Thank you for your improvements to the article on Arthur C. Clarke. However, I had to remove the claim you inserted about his atheism, as such claims without reference are in violation of Wikipedia's policies for biographies of living persons. Unfortunately, your correspondance with him is not verifiable and cannot be used as a reference. If you can find other records of his statements regarding religion in reliable sources, mention of it can be added to the article. Your correspondance provides valuable insight for what should be included in articles, but those facts still must be verifiable. Thank you for your adherence to Wikipedia policy. Ichibani 04:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this will be easy to find. He wrote to me about his atheism, which will be included in my autobiography, for several decades. Note his entry that I included in Philosopedia and cited in the external link - this isn't clear enough:

A member and an active supporter of the Secular Humanist Society of New York, Clarke has long been on record as being a non-believer. “It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God,” he once wrote, “but to create him.” He also told Popular Science in 2004, "Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses. We should get rid of it as quick as we can."

In 3001, if you are a believer, you're sent to the booby hatch. . . .

Spamming Philosopedia

Please stop spamming your website and asking contributors on Wikipedia to help you on your own website. This is spam, and you will be blocked for continuing to do so, as you have on numerous pages. Thank you. --David Shankbone 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am now going to remove the links you added. If you continue to reinsert them, your site may be blacklisted across all Wikimedia projects. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TO THE EDITORS WHO CONSIDER WARREN ALLEN SMITH'S LINKS TO BE SPAM -- I have tracked Smith's edits a bit in recent months and I'm not so sure they should be dismissed as spam. Smith is a venerable periodical editor who corresponded with many notable thinkers of the twentieth century over many decades. He has scanned some of this correspondence and established links to the images. I am a university professor and personally have found some of this material rather interesting and, arguably, historically significant. Be careful what you delete. You may be getting it wrong. Respectfully -- WikiPedant 20:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a university prof as well and think it's spam - shall we wave our dicks at each other or just go off what policy says? If he feels that some of this material is useful, he should avoid a clear conflict of interest and add it for discussion to the relevent talkpages. --Fredrick day 23:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that most of Smith's links are just spam, and wikifying words and concepts within Wikipedia, such as secular humanism, to instead redirect to Philosopedia, is a very bad use of Wikipedia. I also reviewed some of the letters. Many of them were one or two sentences long, akin to a response to a fan. I'm not saying all of those are, but trying to find the useful one or two within the multiple links is a bit much to ask. Look at it this way: you know where you can find all of these - on Philosopedia. That much is clear. --David Shankbone 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What David said, plus the link summaries and some of the content sourced from there blatantly serves to advance an agenda. Or two. Three, if you include promoting the author. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as there are several who think that what I have been adding is inappropriate, I have decided to add no more references to letters received from individuals, mainly in the 1950s. Nothing more. The letters, all donated to Harvard's Houghton Library, are available there and will be on Philosopedia when several hundred more scannings are posted. The scans from authors whose last names start with A through C already are on Philosopedia, and I'll continue from D to Z (e.g., John Dewey to William Carlos Williams), without making external links to Wikipedia. As for promoting the $125 book, that 2,000-run is finished and dated - Philosopedia merely updates the book for free. A 19 June 2007 article in The Advocate described 182 gay and straight Wikipedians who belong to a WikiProject LGBT studies group - my intent had been merely to work with that group, obtaining information from them to help transfer my book's considerable information about gays from dead paper to cyberspace. Philosopedia can still complement Wikipedia, which is my major inspiration when doing research. This confession should make it clear that I am more into ideas than technical matters and apologize for having been unable to find qualified Wiki users to help. I'm no techy, so I hope I'm not spamming by signing my name in this final note. Warren Allen Smith

Warren, you are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, and we'd be glad to have you. The problem is with your efforts to divert readers and users out of Wikipedia to your own website. You have done this not only with links that essentially lead a person to your website with your perspective on topics that are community-edited in Wikipedia. What bothered me the most with your edits was your taking concepts and ideas that are found in Wikipedia and instead of Wikifying them, re-directed them to your own website; these include "Arthur Ochs Sulzberg Jr." "American Academy of Arts and Sciences" and "secular humanism". Your note above has you apologizing and lamenting your inability to lure Wikipedia editors to Philosopedia. You were spamming by putting links to your own Wiki project, which is all your own view and your own original research. You weren't spamming by signing your name, but by efforting to divert editors and readers to your own project. That's not a very admirable use of Wikipedia. --David Shankbone 14:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now on June 26th, Joseph Hilbe and other philosophers are writing me to complain that "external links" I submitted have been deleted (maybe as many as 50!), possibly because of documented references to their being unbelievers or gay. Louis Appignani complains that the picture he asked me to put up on Wikipedia was not accepted. Again, I have always thought of Philosopedia as complementing Wikipedia, not competing against it or "luring" anyone away from Wikipedia! Meanwhile, dozens of Wikipedia entries fail to document individuals' atheism or non-belief and/or homosexuality. Unable to locate individuals to help me (Philosopedia is a one-person entity) by submitting "proper" Wiki entries, I have completely stopped submitting actual scanned correspondence. Shankbone, you and the Canadian professor have given excellent advice, but I just don't have the time (I'm 85) to learn how to write proper Wiki or discuss all this further. Warren Allen Smith 01:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little disingenuous, Warren, to claim ignorance of Wiki when you have succeeded in not only writing an entire page dedicated to yourself, but also have your own complete Wiki website that is a "one man entity" made up of you. The beauty of Wikipedia is anyone can edit it, including Mr. Hilbe and all the other philosophers who feel they do not feel their articles reflect who they are absent Philosopedia links. Best of luck to you. --David Shankbone 05:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ken Smith, Iowa-born architect.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ken Smith, Iowa-born architect.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]