User talk:Halfblue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello Halfblue, and welcome to Wikipedia. I think you'll find Wikipedia an exellent place and have a good time editing articles. Wikipedia is very diverse and has articles about almost any subject.

If you're new to editing wiklipedia, you can check out the introduction. Then you can look at the tutorial for more information about editing on Wikipedia.

Some other links you might be interested in:

Have a great time at Wikipedia! Remeber that now you are a user, you can (and should) sign your name to *talk* pages (example) using four tildes: ~~~~

If you have any questions, please stop by my talk page, I'm lonely :). Or you can go to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or place {{helpme}} on your talk page, and someone will come to answer you.

Have a great time here! -Xol 05:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Camcorder pic

I have been cleaning up Camcorder a bit and decided to remove the addition of your image of Indymediavid act.jpg for three reasons.

  • It is a poor image--- as a thumbnail it is unreadable (could be fixed with cropping and enlarging of the original file).
  • It is not very illustrative i.e 3 people with two holding a camcorder could be anywhere doing anything and doesn't illustrate a point.
  • Since you name your self as one of the subjects this seems to be a vanity picture WP:VANITY.

Halfblue 14:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me that added that jpg to the camcorder article - that image was actually uploaded to accompany the indymedia article, where I'm sure you'll agree its not inappropriate. quercus robur
Actualy I eventualy noticed that someone else posted it at Camcorder (see history). Even so the image still seems to suffers from problem #1 and #3 no matter where it is used. Halfblue 02:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reflecting telescope

I linked you toward Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:NOT and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia because the pages both put forward the concept of "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". What you may need to grasp in your edits is that even "providing practical examples of theoretical concepts" has to have a logical structure re: what article you drop it into (on other words "Encyclopedic). The right stuff in the wrong article does not work very well. I don't know if you have a problem with someone editing your stuff (if you do Wikipedia warns you off the bat that this may not be the place for you.) Your recent edits have been bold but indiscriminant. Moving stuff wholesale without taking into account where you move it, not adapting to where you are moving it, not making it work with other articles and inter-article structures that have been affected, and not even discussing it on the respective articles talk page makes allot of work for other people. Maybe you are planning to clean it all up in the future but a little more care would be appreciated. Halfblue 23:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


With respect, don't try to lecture me on wikipedia policy as I have been editing long enough to know what is what.

I chopped some bits out and moved them and did not have time to finesse the moves immediately. My observation is that those that have an interest in a particular article will usually start integrating new changes almost immediately, as you have done, so no real harm done.

I appreciate that you are taking a bold position as am I, however I have contributed to this article and many others over a period of time and have been in a situation a number of times where someone comes in with a strong view and starts rewriting at an existing article citing blanket policies.

If I said that the purpose of the reflecting telescope article was to summarise designs and their implementation, then specific implementations would be valid. Of course the article doesn't specifically state that, but over a period of time, that is the flavour the article has taken. You have chosen to decide the article shouldn't reference implementations. That doesn't make you right, it just means you have a different view of the purpose of the article.

Based on my experience on wikipedia, I'm going to leave some of these related articles alone for now as I can see you have strong views and we may otherwise clash further, which I see no value in. Good luck with your editing. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually my edits are based on logic more than wanting to throw the Wikipedia book around. My logic is we have basic categories - sub categories - variations, all generic descriptions... and then maybe a reference or link to the commercial application if they are relevant. So I ask you what logical structure you’re basing your edits on? If its "thrown everything at the wall and see what sticks" that’s fine but be prepared for me and other editors to be bemused at your edits and probably remove them at some point.
If you say (for example) your VIXEN edit is "valid" because it’s adding "specific implementations", it brings up a few problems. Problem #1 is we only have one "implementation"... a commercial one... and that does have a name -> its called Spam. I'm not saying you intentionally spammed the page. But Spam concerns rise out of WP:NPOV concerns. A non-POV edit in that case would be to add several implementations and compare them one to another. When you add only one implementation out of all the ones there are out there then the article is not neutral. And when you add it to Reflecting Telescopes instead of Telescopes---> Catadioptrics --> Maksutovs--> commercial sub types then be prepared for someone else to move or excerpt it.
I assume you are saying your approach was "hey I'll add it and wait for other people to add the other examples". My approach was to move the content to the TALK page (as per Wikipedia policy) and note that it does not fit in the article for at least two reason stated above.
hey… articles build cruft and get superceded by newer more relevant pages. That leads to someone coming along and saying “hey--- does that still belong here?”. Halfblue 02:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Vixen's implementation is a unique design unless you are aware of another manufacturer who makes Cassegrain or Maksutov-Cassegrain telescopes without a corrector plate. I considered that a major and noteworthy variation of the original design and based on the state of the article at the time it seemed a good fit. I've moved it elsewhere since you seem adamant that it is not appropriate content for an article on designs. On a final note, I should point out that your perspective on what constitutes commercial spam is in error. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm-- IBM is spam ;^)? The Vixen model in question without a corrector is similar to the Argunov-Cassegrain telescope---so now we got two. Since you name two inventors in the description, and they don’t appear to be Vixen employees, writing from a Neutral Point Of View would be describing their invention and not a resulting commercial model (Same as the Maksutov is presented as an invention of Dmitri Maksutov and not a "Questar" product.
Listing just one commercial product in an article that has few or no other commercial products in it with florid language about how it performs would constitute Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements masquerading as articles from some viewpoints. Like I said I don't think that was your intent. Halfblue 05:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Focal ratio

What's up with focal ratio?? It is redundant with the preexisting f-number. These are two names for the same thing, so they should be covered in a single article. I switched the former back to a redirect.

Please reply at talk:focal ratio. (Nevermind, I just found the discussion at talk:f-number.) --Srleffler 19:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Halfblue, please slow down on the link changing to your new redundant focal ratio article. When we revert it back to a redirect, all those will ideally need to be fixed back again. Also, please be careful when changing "aperture" to "f-number", especially when there's a numerical comparison involved that becomes inverted due to higher f-number being a smaller aperture. I fixed one for you already. Dicklyon 20:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That edit was actualy unrelated to the ongoing debate about f-number. The problem with that reference to "aperture" that I was trying to fix is that aperture has two meanings - the second being "diameter" of the Objective (optics). Its use there led to ambiguity since its convoluted style could lead to it being read catadioptric lenses come in only one diameter of objective working at a slow f-number... which is not correct since catadioptic lenses come in many apertures (diameters). I have edited it to take out any ambiguity. Halfblue 02:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Films Newsletter

The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 06:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films February Newsletter

The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 23:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Shyamalan M Night.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shyamalan M Night.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

{subst:replaceable|Shyamalan M Night.jpg}} Abu badali (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 00:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/l/User_talk%7EHalfblue_18a1.html"