User talk:ShamanDhia/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
US Copyright info for Golem: (GOLEM_lives_783k.jpg)
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First
Golem.
Type of Work: Visual Material Registration Number / Date: VAu000699904 / 2006-03-02 Title: Golem. Copyright Claimant: Denise Mortillaro, 1969- (Shaman Dhia, pseud.) Date of Creation: 2006 Previous Registration: Appl. describes preexisting material. Basis of Claim: New Matter: adaptation of design & additional artistic work. Copyright Note: Cataloged from appl. only.
Names: Mortillaro, Denise, 1969- Dhia, Shaman, pseud.
I think I am notable because I have the copyright to this historic image.
The Golem project is an experiment with Digital Art distribution. The 36" x 36" PDF/JPG suitable to print-to canvas, is available for sale from an external link. The 10" x 10" JPG uploaded to wiki is ok to use/edit/distribute freely and endlessly. The high-res version is for museums, enthusiasts, collectors, etc.
Can you give me some time?
the Hitochi Princess (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia
My artwork is created from light, and resides in machines until someone purchases it and prints it. My whole philosophy of art centers around computers and this image is historic, not just because of the DaVinci reference, but because it integrates internet marketing and ecommerce in its execution. (the 10" x 10" upload is freely distributed/copied/editedthe Hitochi Princess (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)). The 36" x 36" hi-res file will be sold through "iloveyouthismuch.biz" with re-sell rights granted to the purchasers (like in clickbank e-books). "iloveyouthismuch.info" will store the story of the print and its creation. I have to wait 'till my next check to purchase the host for the domain. (by April it should be done)
I am not a regular artist - this is not a regular request - but this project also encourages copyright free image transmission/sharing, and wiki is the premiere place for that. I'm trying to give way more than I recieve from this image, and on that note, I hope you can support this page which is intended to provide a brief biography about me, the artist. This is not my personal webpage, and I am not selling/promoting anything on this page. I am giving artwork away with this system.
I "wikified" the ShamanDhia entry, and I'll read "no original research, neutral point of view, and verifiability" to see how to change the text in the page better.
Thanks, Dhia the Hitochi Princess (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia
March 2008
You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, as you did at ShamanDhia. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.
Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. скоморохъ 17:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:ShamanDhia.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:ShamanDhia.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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:ShamanDhia2.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ShamanDhia2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of ShamanDhia
An editor has nominated ShamanDhia, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShamanDhia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
ShamanDhia
Thanks for contacting me. I found 3 sources from your art school where students spacificly mentioned you as an insparation, it was found during a copernic search.
I am not shure if I am going to have the answers you are looking for, but I will do my best based on my point of view. First off, the biggest problem is the question of Notablility, I believe the qualifications for notability are found in WP:BLP, but a good rule of thumb is "extensive coverage in secondary sources" using WP:RS. Please note that self published and press relieces don't count for reliable sources. Now you have named a few sources in the AFD (article for deletion page), I would say encorperate them into the article itself. I believe you recieved a welcome template when you signed up (if you didn't I will get you one), if you havn't read through it take a look it gives great suggestions on how to format an article and put in citations. I personaly prefer non-timeline/non-bullet point writing because it gives a list of disjoined information which dosn't read well...but that is just a preferance, you will find those formats in articles on Wikipedia all the time. use what you are most comfortable with, and what reads best. For reformating I would suggest that you understand you are trying to tell a narritive of events, not a collection of facts. Facts are neccisary, however the "why should I be interested" question always is in the back of my mind when looking at articles (think human interest...if I am not interested I am much more inclined to think it isn't notable). You have been thrown into a malstrom early in your wiki carreer. AFD's are always confusing and chaotic, and involve a lot of wiki rhetoric and quoting of rules. Right now, it dosn't look good for your article from my perspective...and I am not shure what you can do to save it. What truly pains me, is that you are a good editor and you have the kind of instincts and tone that we need on wikipedia. Most people I have seen in your position bite at the nomination (which dosn't help their case at all), but you truly looked for help which I admire. Given the revisionist tradition in Rhetoric (great speeches are often rewriten in light of events that occured after the speech)(cisaro's speech to Cataline is a perfict example) please imagine that I gave a effective persuasive heartfelt appeal for you to continue editing after all this is said and done. The article is about you, but the AFD is about the article, not you. I hope this helped, feel free to contact me with further questions. Coffeepusher (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did you use the "ref" bookends that are 3rd from the right on the first line of the Wiki Markup section in the box under the edit summary section?...they are also located as the last button on top of the edit box. they sometimes screw up.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- ok, there you go. the first reference is taken care of. if you have any more problems please let me know, I will be glad to help you. additionaly, if you want to see examples of extensive references see the Public sphere page. I kinda rewrote the entire thing, and it is heavily footnoted.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yah, got me?!? I am just suposing it is a glitch in the formating, just wait for it to fix itself...because otherwise I have no idea what to do. the citations look good, and even if the ancors don't work, it dosn't really matter. as for your question about talk pages. every wikipedia page has a talk page. your talk page is used just like what we are doing, exchanging information between users. the pages themselves have talk pages to discuss the article (not the topic of the article like a forum, but just the editing of the article itself). See WP:TALK for more information. then you have the actuall wikipedia pages where the community discusses issues that affect wikipedia itself. the AFD's are one example, then we have pages where we discuss promoting people to Admin (they run the nuts and bolts of wikipedia) etc. the one common factor is that the discussion involves wikipedia itself. don't worry about contacting me, you happened to catch me at a good time, it is always good to help someone unfamiliar with wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- ok, shure. honastly you probably know more about code than I do...Pascel was a mathamaticion and philosopher as far as I am conserned. so good luck on that...and if you figure it out, feel free to share your findings. I love info.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I just read your question about the endnotes again, and realised that I didn't answer it at all. check WP:REF and that probably has the information you are looking for about foonotes and endnotes. You are working hard, and I applaud you for that. even if the article dosn't stand, you are head and sholders above most people who have been on wikipedia for such a short time. revel in the now, and remember Changtzu's parable about the farmer "is it good? how do I know?". Feel free to contact me at any time...however for tonight I am going to bed.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- ok, shure. honastly you probably know more about code than I do...Pascel was a mathamaticion and philosopher as far as I am conserned. so good luck on that...and if you figure it out, feel free to share your findings. I love info.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your post at my talk [1] (If this is "you", you were not logged on when you posted, if not, please disregard this post). Unfortunately your narrative is not your weakest point, your references are. The references all seem to be correct and valid as references, but the do not reference anything that supports notability. WP:BIO is the applicable guideline here. Being published and exhibiting is something that all working artists can claim and are acceptable for being in an artist directory such as AskArt but it does not meet the criteria of notability in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory of artist. It is an encyclopedia that, as such includes notable people. You seem to be making good faith efforts to improve the article but so far your efforts amount to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, there are more fundamental problems that need to be addressed. This wiki stuff can be hard to grasp, and one of the fundamental points allot of artist/editors promoting themselves fail to grasp is that Wikipedia is not a place to promote your self. That is why several editors have recommended you not edit your own article. I do hope you will continue to help out in the "addicting" world of Wikipedia and not take my remarks as criticism of you or your motives, just as a little help from a fellow addict. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok I looked back through the article. its coming along nicely. My first impression is to take yourself out of the article. This may seem contridictory from my last advice so let me explain. although we are writing a human interest narritive, internal dialogue that isn't backed up by reliable sources is suspect in wikipeida. try re reading the article and seeing if you can find sources for some of your statements. I wikified some links in the article (connected them to other articles), and I think you may find the section on Alister Crowly interesting (and a possible future project for you...its just a thought). also along those lines, there is a group of people who spacificly look at art projects on wikipedia which you may want to join, they discuss ways to improve the existing articles, and collaberate in the upkeep. just some thoughts, I will get you the link.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome
|
Image copyright problem with Image:ShamanDhia portrait.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:ShamanDhia portrait.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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
re: ShamanDhia
In response to your message, it has been more or less covered above, but to reiterate, there are several issues with ShamanDhia. One, the article reads like a directory entry or resume and doesn't assert notability. According to the Biographies of Living Persons and notability guidelines, a person must be notable in order to have an article and the notability is proven by secondary, non trivial sources. The article should also be written by a neutral third party in order to avoid a conflict of interest. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
future projects
I just searched throught the directory, and found that their are several projects that directly relate to your interests, spacificly Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration, Wikipedia:WikiProject Art, Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphic design, Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. check them out, and I think your skills will be of great service to wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:ShamanDhia2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:ShamanDhia2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Some (hopefully) helpful thoughts
I have been watching the deletion debate regarding the page ShamanDhia since it began nearly a week ago and I have read all the often acrimonious debate that has gone on and I have come up with a few things that I thought I would pass on to you in hopes that you might find them helpful. First and foremost: you are welcome here on Wikipedia and I hope that this controversy arising from your first contributions will not cause you to leave Wikipedia. It is a sad fact that many promising new editors are frightened off by the all-too-common practice of biting the newcomers and I hope your voice will not be lost to this particular ailment. I have noted that most of the problems you have encountered seem to spring from your unfamiliarity with the Wikiworld and its customs and practices. If you have not already done so, I encourage you to start at Help:contents and read everything you can from there. All the ins and outs of editing are explained, and the policies and guidelines section might help you to better understand exactly why people have raised objections to your article and how best to address those concerns.
Another consequense of being new here is a bit harder to explain or remedy and that has to do with the overall atmosphere and internal dynamics. The way this pertains to the deletion debate is that here at Wikipedia there is a comparatively small group of dedicated (if sometimes stubborn) editors that are heavily involved in the internal aspects of how the site is constructed and what content should and should not be included. One of the major sources of ongoing irritation for these people is the constant barrage of articles being added that are autobiographies, advertisements, or pure self-congratulation. A considerable amount of effort has to be put into reviewing all these submissions, checking them for factuality, and ultimatly deleting the great majority of them. As a result, many of the editors here (and I include myself in this one) are deeply suspicious of any content that anyone has written about themselves. There are some that feel that writing an article about oneself is prima facie evidence that one is not notable enough to be included since, if you were, someone else would have already done it for you. I can't say I entirely disagree with this reasoning, although I don't entirely agree with it either. Unfortunately, it is into exactly this trouble spot that you (through no fault of your own) have unwittingly walked. As seen through the eyes of some who have called for your page's deletion, yet another random person joined Wikipedia for the first time and immediately submitted their autobiography/resumé to advertise themselves, their business, their work or just to see their name in Wikipedia and then made all the usual complaints when it went up for deletion. Of course, as a new Wikipedian, you had no way of understanding this dynamic nor anticipating the kind of scrutiny your article would receive. It is also unfair to hold your lack of experience with editing/formatting on Wikipedia against you; people often forget that they were newbies once. Also, you mentioned that you had been told that on Wikipedia anyone could post anything they want which is almost true but omits many important criteria for what content gets to stay on Wikipedia. What I am trying to say is that although the resistance you have encountered was understandable (to a more seasoned Wikipedian) it was not really your fault and a few people have made some harsh statements towards you that I feel were uncalled for.
On the other hand (there's always another hand, isn't there,) I would suggest that you review a few of the statements that you have made, for example: "I think I am a sort of special case[,]" and "it will be a long time before anyone not in the digital media art realm will be able to understand my work enough to write about it[,]" and "my waiting to be noticed by regular people to earn the honor of being "notable" beyond what I already am is crazy from my perspective because of the kind of artist I am[,]" and "I am clearly worth a 1 in 2.4 million exception[,]" and "I'm only talking about the site I made in 1996 this month, because when I made it, no one knew what the hell computers were, let alone the internet[,]" (emphasis mine.) Take a close look at each of those statments individually and surely you can see how, even if your intention was not so, these statments could seem awfully arrogant and conceited. The last one is not even remotely true as what is generally accepted as the first modern OS (Windows 95) was released the previous year and I myself had been building computer systems as a sideline for several years before that point and had a personal website starting in 1995 as did a great many others. What is my point? I guess I'm just hoping that at the end of the day we can, each of us, see all sides of the issue and understand each other, even if we may never all agree. Let me close, then, as I began by saying that you are welcome at Wikipedia and I hope you choose to keep editing here, whatever the outcome of this present debate. If you have any unanswered questions, feel free to leave me a message on my user talk page and I'll try to help as best I can. Best wishes. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 00:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Second That
Per OlenWhitaker, who has explained things very very well - I'll sure take it on board. Hope it helps. Stay with the project - I for one do not doubt you have much to contribute here. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
SamaDhia, I as well hope you join the Wiki community. I was sorry the debate went the way it did, however I believe during the prossess you became more seasoned as an editor than most become in such a short period of time. It would be ashamed to loose all that experience.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Image Deletion
I am not really the correct person to ask that question since the relm of images is vege and confusing to me (the map of that area of wikipedia states Here be dragons in my brain). However I may know some users who will be able to help you, I am in a time crunch for the next few hrs, however I will do some reserch and refer you to someone in a little bit.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hey. The reason your image was deleted was because your article got deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShamanDhia). You can ask on deletion review for your image to be restored. Will (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Removing content from your user talk page
To answer your question: as a rule it is not accepted practice to remove content from talk pages, unless it is your own comments and even then it is usually better to strikeout your previous statement than to remove it completely. On your own user talk page, however, you have more flexibility. At present I don't see anything on your user talk page that would be likely to cause any ruffled feathers were you to blank the page. The only ways you would be likely to run into trouble deleting content from your own user talk page would be if you removed content from an active discussion (the deletion discussion and related content are now moot so they can go if you wish,) altered the meaning of anyone else's comments, selectively removed one person's comments and left the rest (except in cases of personal attacks which should always be removed wherever they may be found,) or removed vandalism warnings/block notifications etc. Since none of those appears to apply, I would say go ahead and blank the page if you wish. Having said that, it is always preferable to archive past discussions to be absolutely sure of not upsetting anyone. Instructions on how to do that can be found at Help:Archiving a talk page. If you want to archive, but can't figure out the instructions, leave me a message and I can do it for you. Cheers. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
