User talk:Freshacconci/Archive 14

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mariel boatlift may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Night Falls (film)|Before Night Falls]]'' (2000). In the pilot episode of the television series ''[[Miami Vice]'' (1984), the villain's right hand man, Trini De Soto, mentions he was in detention

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Scok Puppet

You told me to edit under one account, and linked me to sock puppetry. I only have one account and I would hope that someone with as much experience on Wikipedia wouldn't resort to baseless claims. IBX.Lee (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)IBX.Lee

Yes, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that you just suddenly appeared with very few edits, making the same edit with the same basic argument as another editor. As the kids say, quack, quack, quack. freshacconci talk to me 19:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Glitch Art Further reading revision

Re: Removal of off-topic and/or self published texts 14:22 29, June 2013. Just saw this - there was a panel on glitch and identity / sexuality, etc. at GLI.TC/H 2112 last December. Noticed the removal of my essay "Queer Identity and Glitch." Obviously this isn't a platform for self-publication (just so you know, I was not the original poster who included the article on this wiki page). I updated bibliographical info in the article PDF itself. It was not self published, was given as a lecture at a couple conferences in 2012 (this was not previously clear). The same link will forward to the updated document now (http://www.kevinbenisvy.com/sites/default/files/2012%20-%20The%20Queer%20Identity%20and%20Glitch.pdf). I just think that an article referencing the issue of identity politics could be included on this page. The representation of the topic by a panel at GLI.TC/H 2112 seems to indicate its relevance to the glitch art topic, although any decent essay on glitch and identity would do. Perhaps it could be considered for re-inclusion, or I could help you find an alternative text on the subject?

Kbenisvy (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand versus Kiwi

Hi, you may care to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Deaths in 2013#Adjectival descriptor for a New Zealand person. Regards, WWGB (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for clearing the vandalism from my Talk page. Please enjoy this brownie as a token of my appreciation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Chinwe Chukwuogo-Roy

Thank you for your note, however I checked carefully before adding the artist to the list and it was clear to me that she met the citeria required, indeed significantly more so than several of the artists already there.

Her work is held in permanent exhibition by the University of London. All the works held in the Menzies gallery are by her as are the majority in the Handcock rooms. She has work that is available to the public to view in the Queen's collection at Buckingham Palace and, by appointment, at Marlborough House.

She has had many solo exhibitions including those at Trinity Hall, Cambridge University; The Sainsbury Centre at (UEA) the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Connecticut University; Christchurch Mansions, Ipswich; The Lowry Gallery, Salford; The Manchester Central Library Gallery, Manchester; The RCS, London; The UNESCO Place de Fontenoy Gallery,Paris; 6 months solo exhibition at the Ipswich and Colchester Museum's Saachi Gallery, as well as major solo exhibitions at commercial galleries including The Mall Gallery, London; Rever's Cork Street Gallery, London. Her CHOGM Exhibition colaboration with the National Art Gallery of Nigeria has been viewed by over 50 Heads of State and is the largest exhibition ever to have been held in that country.

Incidentally she and John Mack, director of the British Museum represented the United Kingdom at the Council of Europe on African Art. She was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by the UEA and was made a Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (MBE) for her contributions to Art.

Although some of her prints change hands for under £5,000 many of her oil paintings are in excess of £25,000 with key pieces valued over £80,000. Kiredoryor (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Rudeness

Please maintain a neutral POV when making comments. It is not unnecessary to make rude and insulting remarks and implications. MapleBleafs (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Rude? No. Tired of dealing with sockpuppets and POV pushers? Yes. freshacconci talk to me 16:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Paperback Writer" Personnel

Hello,

In regards to your message, I have cited two Guitar Player magazine articles that back up the information I have posted, and cited a photograph which I plan to upload to the article.

The person that keeps deleting my information and replacing it with inaccurate information is basing their writings on the viewing of a music video, and that is not adequate research.

Also, with all due respect, Ian MacDonald was not present at the recording session for "Paperback Writer". Paul McCartney, however, was, so I will continue to base my articles on his published recollections, and the published photographs which verify McCartney's statements, and not a book that was written years later, or a music video that the Beatles mimed to. Revdangerfield (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revdangerfield (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A photo is not a source. You are removing actual sources and replacing them with your own observations and now you are edit warring, which can get you blocked. I suggest you knock it off and discuss the edits on the talk page of the article. freshacconci talk to me 14:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources that I removed were written by Ian MacDonald who was not present at the recording session, and replaced by two sets of published quotes by Sir Paul McCartney himself, who wrote and performed the song in question. I cited a photograph due to my instrumentation information being deleted and replaced by observations of a music video that does not accurately represent the recording session. I have detailed this on the "Paperback Writer" talk page. If the information I have posted continues to be replaced by inaccurate and poorly sourced information, I will seek protection status for this article. Revdangerfield (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ian MacDonald is a reliable source, used in all the Beatle articles. We cannot use a photograph based on your observations. It's as simple as that. I cannot see where a video is being used in that section as a source. All sources used in the Personnel section are published sources, including one addressing McCartney's claim. You are free to seek protection of the article, but I'm afraid if it's protected, it will be because of your edits and you may be blocked if you continue to edit war. freshacconci talk to me 14:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Once again, Ian MacDonald was not there, Paul McCartney was, and I have included two separate, published, and credible quotes in which McCartney clearly states that he played lead guitar on "Paperback Writer" and played his parts on his 1964 Epiphone Casino. I have removed my references to the published photograph, but kept my references regarding McCartney's two separate Guitar Player magazine interviews. Also, the references to the promotional video that I speak of are the claims that McCartney played his Hofner 500/1 bass, Lennon played his 1965 Epiphone Casino, and Harrison played his Gibson SG. The ONLY source that implies this choice of instrumentation is the promotional video for "Paperback Writer". "Beatles Gear" by Andy Babiuk details the session on pages 179, 182, 183, and 184. A photo on page 179 showing Lennon holding an orange Gretsch 6120 is labeled "John pictured in April 1966 at the 'Paperback Writer' session at Abbey Road". Page 182 also details McCartney's use of the Epiphone Casino and Harrison's use of the Burns Nu-Sonic bass during this session. I am sorry that these facts do not correspond with your edits, but they are the facts, and are well-documented. Revdangerfield (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Giclée"

As previously indicated, the source for the material in question is exactly the same source as for the material preceding it (^ Johnson, Harald. "What's In a Name: The True Story of Giclée" [2], dpandi.com). To again quote directly from that source: "For many artists, the debate over "giclée" continues. Some object to its suggestive, French slang meaning ("spurt")." If the source is valid for the "accepted" material contained in this entry, then it is also valid for the contribution in question. I have also cited further valid sources to augment my position. I am editing this content toward the inclusion of factual, valid and cited information. I can only speculate as to the motivations behind the campaign to repeatedly exclude it.58.106.244.202 (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

confirmation of wording

Hi Freshacconci—I was wondering if you had a chance to locate the Lichtenstein book? If so, did you find on page 17 the sentence: "In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time"? It is actually the only remaining sentence unconfirmed. User:Czar in the thread on the "Visual arts Talk page" has come up with a partial confirmation of the material I was inquiring about. Thanks! Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Picture for Women, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Museum of Contemporary Art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. freshacconci talk to me 15:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Coltrane Bayoumi edit

On the album A Love Supreme Coltrane repeats the title of the album in refrain clearly and articulately. Bayoumi's claim that "A Love Supreme slides easily into Allah Supreme" is not relevant to Coltrane's religious views. The fact that one author states that the chorus of the song "slides easily" into words is wholly unrelated to the song and John Coltrane's religious views. It serves as a point of confusion in the religious views section. Coltrane stated time and time again in print that he believed in all religions. The other passages in the religious views section mirror this fact. The Bayoumi passage is completely out of place. Referenced of not, would you agree that John Lennon's religious views section should not contain an entry that says: John Doe has been cited as saying that the sentence "I heard the news today, oh boy" slides easily into "I herd the Jews today, oh boy." The fact that a single person thinks that the structure and prosody of a refrain could accommodate a different set of words does not deserve mention. Please read that section carefully, the Bayoumi passage is not only absurd, it has nothing to do with John Coltrane's religious views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.54.247 (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I responded on the Coltrane talk page. freshacconci talk to me 15:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

List of painters by name

Thanks for correcting me, I saw the edit as low to moderate level of "vandalism" on Huggle and reverted it, then thought it was a mistake then un-did it. Thanks though. ///EuroCarGT 23:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Informalism

Thanks for the comment since I'm interested in what you have to say. I realized that my translation of the Spanish page, Informalismo, is not relevant enough. I think that the best page on Informalism is the French one. It's comprehensive so I will redo the page using the French one as a model. Regarding merging Informalism under Tachism, I agree in merging both but under the umbrella of Informalism since that was the primary artistic movement and Tachism was a part of Informalism. Tachism is an informal process, a pictorial technique that certain Informalist painters developed but the majority of the Informalist used various techniques, including tachism. Would you like me to include a paragraph on Tachism under Informalism? Wikime54 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikime54 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Informalism or Tachism

Hello Freshacconci, I think it is interesting and I agree things can be improved about those artistic currents, for ex, in western painting Informalism doesn't exist at all, this is not historically correct, cubism is not the last western current, and wesern it doesn't mean american. On the other way, in Europe, Tachism is considered by history of art like a part, a tachnical way within Informalism. So I think we should improve the articles about all this period of European art, for ex, in french we have, Art Informel as article and not Informalism. If someone doesn't know about it, he's going to be lost. Informalisme in french should be the correct nomination. And we need more images illustrating that artistic movement. All the best. Barcelonacultura

Precious

Picture for Women
Thank you, art historian, for quality articles for project Visual arts such as Toronto School of communication theory and Picture for Women, for good reviews and fighting vandalism, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! That is very nice of you to say. freshacconci talk to me 19:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time I have ever tried to edit or update a Wikipedia article and please accept my apologies if I have done so other than in accordance with their policies and procedures. I cited the newspaper source for some of the info that I included and, if required can give further details of date and issue #, etc. I simply was attempting to include the fact that non-union musicians also contributed greatly to the so-called "Toronto Sound". Only bigger-name local T.O. bands of the day were included in the original article (most, if not all, who were members of the Toronto Musician's Union at the time), and many who went on to become world-famous. Please advise how I can update/include additional information within the Wikipedia guidelines. Thx for your prompt attention and anticipated response. hd74dh

PS: What's with the Hd74dh (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)?

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Erik Sommer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• York City, Sommer recreated the living room of an apartment. The show received a favorable review] by [[Robert C. Morgan]] in the Spring 2013 issue of ''World Sculpture News''.{{citationneeded}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The R. Mutt Urinal

	The R. Mutt Urinal
	For grokking art history, and helping make Wikipedia a better resource for contemporary art. Theredproject (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Violation of Fair use rules

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Picture for Women

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on a very successful DYK! It got 6,087 views, which was sufficient for me to add it to the monthly leaders on the DYK Statistics page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary art

Hi Freshacconci. i would like to revitalize the wikiproject contemporary art. I added some resources and edited a bit the project pages. I think it would be useful to have a coordinated space for contemporary art content. it is still needing quite a lot of effort to improve the pages. hope you like the idea and thanks.--Iopensa (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I meant to revert the article edit and didn't realize I reverted the talk page edit, hence my self-revert. Hwy43 (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:174.118.141.197. Thank you. This IP has brought up a valid concern at ANI. Your warning and comments appear to show a lack of good faith in IP editors, and show a lack of research on your part. Had you examined his contributions, you would have seen the ANI discussions. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 00:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a rather broad brush to say I show a lack of good faith in IP editors since I was dealing with one editor. Care to back up that accusation with actual evidence of such conduct? AGF is to be applied with common sense and frankly this editor is most likely a long-term sock. Sorry, ducks are ducks. I don't believe AGF is meant to permit socks, vandals and others (IPs or account holders) to run rampant. I'm not buying it. freshacconci talk to me 02:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure. At this diff your edit summary appears to be a comment about the one IP editor, but neither the edit summary nor the comment provide any evidence of socking or sock-like behavior. Here, at this diff, you reverted all of his edits as disruption, but without apparently checking his contribution history. Had you done so, you would have seen he has already been at ANI and had significant support for his position. Here at this diff, you state that WP:AGF is only a guideline, which is true, but it is also a significant part of the Fourth Pillar, and you admit that you don't assume good faith on his part. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in what you wrote shows I lack good faith in IPs. We're still talking about one editor, not IPs in general. His sudden appearance and interest in this discussion on sockpuppetry and his wholesale deletion of the templates is at best odd behaviour for someone who claims to have not edited since 2010. I don't see significant support for his position at the ANI -- it wasn't he who had filed the report. He just appeared somewhere in the middle. So significant support? For what? He's a minor player in that discussion. My reverts were based on what I saw as disruptive behaviour. Seeing that ANI first would have changed nothing. He's disruptive and enjoys games. His edits and language used is clear. Why would someone who hadn't edited since 2010 be so interested in this specific and frankly obscure discussion and then take it on himself to delete all those templates? Sorry, again I'm not buying the act. And I only need to assume good faith when first encountering any editor. Once I see their behaviour, good faith no longer applies. Anyway, that's the way I see it. I've been around here long enough to see obvious patterns and this one is pretty obvious. freshacconci talk to me 02:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your Q about early movements in digital art, entry 'digital painting'

Dear Freshacconci,

Thank you for your message.
The information rests on my observance of developments in digital art as a digital artist.
Since it is difficult for any reader to judge my reliability as a source, I will sumbit the text to an institutional source.

Kind regards,
Pauline van de Ven,
Amsterdam, Nederland
T. +31206252688
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandevenp (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Freshacconci,

I am glad I worked some more on this, thank you, the information is much better now.
Here is are Q and RE:

Q:
>On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Pauline van de Ven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dear Don,
> I would like to submit the following concept text to your critical evaluation.
> It is for information purpose.
> If there is anything incorrect or incomplete, or if you see some things
> differently, please let me know. I would like to insert a reference to MOCA for this information.
> Thank you very much,
> Kind regards,
> Pauline van de Ven (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
> T.+31.20.6252688

RE:
>Pauline,
>I think this is very good. Concise and accurate. The music score metaphor is right on!
>Correct the spelling in "digically".

>Best regards,
>Don

>Don Archer
>Director
>MOCA: Museum of Computer Art
>http://moca.virtual.museum

Here is the new text.
We may use MOCA as a reference. Could you perhaps do this? I don't know how.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freshacconci&action=edit&section=24#

Dear Freshacconci,
Please consider the reversal of a link to my blog as an external reference. This is not spam. The blog is the source of several headings. The heading 'place of painting in digital art' was submitted to MOCA for critical evaluation. They approved the text, but did not write it.
Kind regards,
Pauline van de Ven
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandevenp (talk • contribs) 10:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Place of painting in digital art

Painting is one of at least five directions that can be distinguished in early digital art: (1) 'Computer generated art' springs directly from artificial intelligence and programming. The image is the result of a string of zeros and ones, much the same as music notes on a score are not music themselves, but symbols that determine how the music will sound. (2) 'Digital photo-art' starts with a photo which is manipulated and transformed into a new image with the help of digital tools; (3) 'Digital animation' is a series of paintings or drawings, not necessarily made on a computer, manipulated and put into motion with the help of a computer program. (4) 'Digital video' is a series of photos or videos that likewise has been digitally manipulated and put in motion. (5) 'Traditional digital painting' creates an image in a stroke-by-stroke, brush-in-hand fashion, but the canvas and painting tools are digital.

digitital painting

Dear Freshacconci, I understand why a blog is not a good reference. However, due to the subject being relatively young, it is hard to find references at all. I work as a digital artist and was trained as economist and journalist. I have no other purpose in sharing what little knowledge and experience I may have gathered than promoting general understanding. Would you not consider to keep the information that was deleted online, and add the provision (and invitation) 'a reference is needed'? I think it would serve the quality of the information. In the mean time I will try to find an institutional reference.

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 22:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Francis Bacon

On the issue of the description of Bacon as "Irish born, British figurative painter" this has been a subject of dispute among a number of user/editors of Wikipedia, clearly the talk page requests users to be objective and report Facts supported by evidence in adhering to this principle the description "Irish born" is entirely appropriate back up by historical evidence of the Irish National census of 1911 (please see link http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/reels/nai002575018/) .There is clearly a bias against describing Bacon as Irish as his nationality and forcefully purporting him to be a "British painter" due to his parents nationality they are described as "English" yes his mother was born in England but his father was born in Australia -as can be seen again the census 1911 enumerators abstract. In reporting these facts I would request the Lede be changed to reflect facts "Francis Bacon was born in Dublin, Ireland in 1909" etc, and delete the British description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseoffergeld (talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseoffergeld (talk • contribs) The consensus on the talk page is overwhelmingly in favor of "Irish-born British" as the optimal wording. Theroadislong (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please , Please see the above link to the census of Ireland 1911 not just Francis Bacon's description but also his parents Please try to be objective and report facts and not your opinion - It's not credible to describe Bacon as British he lived in Britain that is a fact and should be included by right, the consensus you mention applies to a motivated audience who participated at the time - recording a Fact the current does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseoffergeld (talk • contribs) 02:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Re: Creation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseoffergeld (talk • contribs) 22:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Re. Transition Design

Hello, I noted your comments that the Transition Design entry provided too much detail and was too essay like. The article has now been revised and developed accordingly, and I think greatly improved as a result. Thank you. I'm new to Wikipedia and am not sure what the protocol is here - do I remove the comments from the top of the page or do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noegid (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yoko Ono

Your recent editing history at Yoko Ono shows that you've deleted an edit that had valid references with some light digging. As someone as experienced as yourself, you already know that undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert, which when done repeatedly, can lead to your being blocked.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. As a reminder, you know you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.--100.2.135.71 (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't be idiotic. freshacconci talk to me 00:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please check what you're reverting

This edit on Talk:Main Page restored vandalism. That's not helpful. Please check what you're reverting. Modest Genius ^talk 19:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi Fresh; Please add your input here: [1], thanks...Modernist (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Factory

Freshaconcci: Please pardon any errors, but I've never communicated via Talk, & so am unfamiliar with the protocols. This may not even be the correct way to respond to your message concerning the page, but Wiki Help was a bit unclear about how to communicate with another editor. I'm sorry that you misunderstood my purpose in editing the page in question; it wasn't a matter of point of view, but of accuracy. I have believed that the purpose of Wiki was to disseminate information, said info being useless if incorrect. I didn't want any reader to be misled by pronouns, etc., & inserted the apostrophes purely for clarification. Your reversal of my edit naturally leads to a reader's possibly confusing a fictional persona for an actual person. I fail to understand the reason for perpetuating misinformation (inadvertently?), however trivial the information may be, but I'll assume you acted as you did in good faith. Thank you for notifying me of your action taken. Best regards, Vkt183 (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sang Won Kang, Kyonoshin Maruyama and Kum Kum Khanna

Since when did Google Scholar became not a reliable source?--Mishae (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a search engine, not a source. You use google to find sources. freshacconci talk to me 04:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

So, some users use Google Books and Web of Science, why are they not reliable?--Mishae (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If editors are using Google Books and Web of Science as sources, they shouldn't be. These are all search engines, used to find sources. They are not sources themselves.

Hm, I need to disagree with you here. Google is a source engine, but whatever links to it is not. Besides, where does it say, it can't be used as a source?--Mishae (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, how about instead of proposing a deletion why not find alternative sources yourself? Its a collaborative project isn't it?--Mishae (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Google is merely a directory and can lead to sources. WP:RS pretty much covers what counts as a source and WP:Search engine test talks specifically about using search engines to find sources. Basically, Google and other search engines are not published per ce. They just gather information. Using Google as a source is actually a form of original research. There may be a more direct guideline about it, but I can't find it. Sorry if I'm not explaining this very well. It's late at night where I live and I may not be too coherent. You can remove the PRODS from those articles if you wish, but as BLPs, they would still need at least one third-party source. freshacconci talk to me 04:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, wondering if you have read this? As far as I can tell, Google is a search engine, but it sub-engines are not.--Mishae (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Now, I don't want to argue or be mean to you or anything (and I apologize in advance if I am), but because you have been in an edit war, I need to seek a second opinion. I hope you don't mind if I will invite users @Ironholds:, @Randykitty:, @Writ Keeper:, @DGG:, and @Kudpung: for a discussion on your talkpage?--Mishae (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what edit war you're referring to. I try not to get into edit wars. But I have no problem with you asking others for their opinions on this. I'd never be so arrogant (I hope) as to assume I'm always correct. I may be misinterpreting guidelines here. freshacconci talk to me 05:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you are, but some say its O.K. to use them (and some are admins, mind you), and some (like you) don't. And then I get confused who is right and who is wrong... To be honest, if I would be you I would rather search for foreign language sites. Pity, I don't read Chinese, Japanese or Hindu (about whom the articles I write).--Mishae (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I was going to express an opinion, but I see that DGG has stepped in to work on the articles; he certainly knows better than I do, so I'll happily defer to him. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Hi, I have currently no time to look at those three articles, but I xan say a bit about WoS, GS, and Google. Google is a search engine and even a large number of Ghits, for example, does not establish notability nor do we put it in articles (of course, if there are many Ghits that is an indication there may be something, but in itself it is not enough). WoS (Web of Science) is a different beast altogether. It's a collection of (curated) databases, the most important one being the Science Citation Index. When you look up academics in WoS, you will find the articles they have published. But in addition, you will also find who has cited that work. A large number of citations ("large" depending on the field) is a sure indication that the person in question has had significant influence on their field and is notable. WoS is a very reputable and reliable source. GS is somewhat in between. The Google guys being what they are, they have kind of copied the SCI, but in a more automatized way. It is also much more comprehensive (instead of indexing a select number of academic journals, they try to index all journals). Like the SCI, GS shows you how often a paper has been cited. And if an academic has set up a profile, you can easily see how many citations that person has and what their h-index is (WoS allows this regardless of whether someone has set up a profile; if there is no profile, you have to do it by hand in GS). GS produces counts that are somewhat inflated, but, again, if citation counts are very high, that shows notability. I would like to stress the difference between Ghits and citations: the former can be trivial, but a citation means that some academic article cites the work of an author and hence has been influenced by it. It basically is a source and being published in a (peer-reviewed) journal, definitely a RS. Each one of these may be very little (which is why we require many more citations for notability than with, say, newspaper articles; generally at a minimum several hundreds), but cumulative this shows notability. As a rule of thumb: an academic with an h-index above 18, or with more than 1000 citations, or with 2 or 3 articles that have more than 100 citations, is almost always kept at AfD. Below that, it depends on the field, because citation counts are much higher generally in the life sciences than in philosophy or mathematics, for example. Hope this helps... --Randykitty (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Syed Nabiullah

Hello Freshacconci. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Syed Nabiullah, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)