Talk:Richard Shaw Brown

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE: Please add new messages at the top pf the list (here):[edit]

As there was no action and I had done the needful in accordance with guideline 4 below, so I went to the conflict of interest noticeboard and could not find Richard Shaw Brown listed. So the COI tag has been removed, which I hope is alright.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Shaw Brown[edit]

Dear Editors,

Based on the below guidelines:

Non-controversial edits

Editors who may have a conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as: 

  1. Removing spam and reverting vandalism.
  2. Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy.
  3. Fixing spelling and grammar errors.
  4. Reverting or removing their own COI edits. Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged.
  5. Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page.
  6. Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them.
  7. Adding pointers to primary sources in archives, special collections or libraries in the Research resources section of an article. Also, adding External links to digitized or digital primary sources or finding aids. Editors working for such organizations are requested to review WP:EL (useful links to on-line, non-promotional material related to the article), WP:NPOV, WP:NOSHARE and WP:ORGNAME. The last two mean don't create a shared organizational account and don't include the name of the organization in the account name. It is recommended but not required for such editors to declare their affiliation on their user page.

Accordingly, as everyone is busy, and based on rules number 4 above, I went ahead and removed all the COI and left bare bones. I did not delete any references numbers. I'm not sure which to delete, because they all support the same thing, my jewelry design career. But the text is bare bones. Based on the above bold line I hope this is OK and you can remove the COI flag from this article. Note: There was a lot of material deleted, maybe more than you would have deleted. So if you revert and then delete by yourselves you'll make a better article. But as is seems like what you wanted done is now done. Thanks--Rickbrown9 (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the COI|date=October 2009 on Richard Shaw Brown[edit]

Hi! I just noticed than another editor has cleaned up The Misunderstood, removing substantial material, in making it the correct standard. That editor was kindly requested to please apply his skills and edit this page too. I have not received any reply, but I hope he, her or you can do what needs to be done to make this notable article properly edited, which, do to the Wiki rules I'm not allowed to assist. I hope one of you can do what needs to be done to make this notable article properly edited. Thanks in advance--Rickbrown9 (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was under the impression that I couldn't say anything about myself, only 3rd party published quotes were acceptable in my own case, or case of my 45 year old band. So if anything came up new that added to the value of the article I just put it in.

If I put in all the 3rd party quotes it would fill 500 pages. So I've only used 66 references in my article. NOTHING by me.

When something is to be done, am I supposed to ask my wife or son to do it?

So now what "3rd party quotes" do you want deleted? There are no bad quotes because you can search the web and you won't find even one bad rap. What should I do now, vandalize my article? I understand about original research, and that's why every single word is 3rd party published referenced information. Same is true with "The Misunderstood" - real published 3rd party info.

I love rules and laws as much as the next guy. Please advise "what to do" about this. I actually believe I'm helping Wikipedia.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the COI|date=October 2009 on Richard Shaw Brown[edit]

I have only put useful information that are verifiable 3rd party published quotes. What am I supposed to do? Hire someone else to put for me? I've given my name and am not hiding! It is not my writing. I was told long ago that Wiki articles only want 3rd party published info. If you see the article there are 64 references cited, and the entire article is made of 3rd party published quotes with reference given. Isn't that correct? Can we please remove the COI|date=October 2009 from an article composed entirely of references of 3rd party published quotes?

BTW: I have written a number of other pages on other notable people. I'm helping Wikipedia with articles and money. And I'm sticking ONLY with 3rd party published quotes. Give me a break. Thanks--Rickbrown9 (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rick: you're an experienced editor with over 1,000 edits going back nearly three years, so I'm confused about why you're asking what you're supposed to do: the guidelines in this area are pretty clear, and I'm sure you're familiar with them. If you weren't familiar with them, you certainly had ample opportunity to become familiar with them during the more than two years since other editors began began alerting you that there are problems with creating and editing an article about yourself. If you are still unfamiliar with them, please take the opportunity now to review, for example, the guidelines on autobiographies and conflicts of interest. The essay Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest is also helpful in avoiding conflict-of-interest editing. In general, the following practices are strongly discouraged:
You have opted to disregard these guidelines and your rationale for doing so isn't clear to me. It's certainly better, though not sufficient, to have have used third-party sources, but it really isn't at all appropriate for you to be judging and selecting those sources when their subject-matter is you, your associates and your or their activities. In general, conflict-of-interest editing ought to be avoided altogether. If it is to be engaged in at all, it ought to be done sparingly, very rarely and extremely carefully. An exception is poorly-sourced negative or defamatory content, which you -- and indeed every editor -- are encouraged to remove on sight.
In the interest of seeking wider opinion, I'll post a query at the conflict of interest noticeboard. --Rrburke(talk) 18:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Original Research AND Advertisement[edit]

The main contributor of this article, Rsbj66, is the subject himself.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute[edit]

  • As per WP:NOR, it is applicable to the test of notoriety and encyclopedic worth. The article also cites many quotes by his co-workers and those that stand to gain from the celebrity of the subject. This is subject to WP:NPOV. The article also lists a company where the subject is employed. That in itself is not a problem, but by breaking NPOV, statements by and achievements of the company may be considered an advertisement. -- Emana 21:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its really stripped down 90% of the article to bare bones, and added and arranged references. Is there anything else you can suggest? Thanks!--Rsbj66 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE REVIEW: Concerning Richard Shaw Brown actually, from a global standpoint, we have far more than "several" International articles ABOUT me to establish CURRENT notability (according to what other editors have written) SINCE AFTER the band. So current notability combined with previous (band) notability, and all is well referenced, it seems like your requests for Richard Shaw Brown to be improved are complete. If not, please let me know what else needs to be done besides providing "several" bona fide references.

Your helping in making the article (and others) suitable for Wikipedia is much appreciated. It is very concise now compared to original article. And excessively referenced. It is 100 times better.

Thanks in advance!!! Best wishes, Richard--Rsbj66 23:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Original research, while contrary to the relevant policy, is not a criteria for speedy deletion. (Proposed deletion is a theoretical possibility, but anyone can remove that, so it is not relevant when there is a dispute on a page.) Even obvious hoaxes are supposed to go to articles for deletion where they get community discussion; we've seen things thought hoaxes that were demonstrably not once a good researcher took a look at them.

Subjects of articles that wish to make facts about themselves usable in Wikipedia should ensure that those facts are first published elsewhere, possibly on their own website. People are generally a reliable subject on their own history, so a person's own website (if verifiably theirs) is an acceptable source for anything but the most outlandish claims. On the other hand, if I claimed on my website to be the 27th president of the United States, I'd be treated as non-reliable.

The more usual issue when an article's subject is editing their article is conflict of interest. More specifically, in this case, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Autobiography. While strongly discouraged, it is not forbidden. Anyone writing one should be aware that others may edit the article into a state very different from that in which they left it.

Reference books should be used and cited, not listed in the introduction.

The article is currently in poor state with regard to weighting of significance; the most important aspects of the subject's career should receive the most extensive treatment. This appears to be the music portion, but the work as an author may merit significant prose attention if the books are widely reviewed or of significant importance.

The collection of quotes needs clean-up. Wikiquote is the proper place for storing quotations, and if there are a number of quotes about the individual in specific, they can be linked to using the {{Wikiquote}} template. (They appear to mostly be about the band, hence that templateprobably that should be on the band's article.) GRBerry 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About 90% of the article is now deleted. The references are sorted out. Hope it's OK.--Rsbj66 18:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOW CLEANED UP WITH MULTIPLE CITATIONS It was requested that I need "several" published neutral references to clear this up. So in all there are 22 references. The article is completely stripped down to basic facts and 22 references are given (more than several are international, and most of the big articles are notable as a gemologist and designer, or post-band notability). There is no fluff. And all referenced. Rgds--Rsbj66 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

200 Articles[edit]

Richard, the issu of the 200 articles being published "by you" or "about you" is quite confusing. As the reference provide is a list of articles "by you" and the edit you made contradicts that. -- Emana 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About 450 articles and interviews have been published on my work over last 15 years, including many trade and society and fashion publications. But I'm only listing 200. About 80% of the articles listed of 200 are ABOUT me and the rest are by me published in different media (not by me). Perhaps it would be right to say, "200 articles published about and by me"--Rsbj66 00:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEW COMMENT[edit]

Emana said in another talk that my notability STOPPED with the band. Actually this is the opposite of the truth. To the Richard Shaw Brown page we have 15 references given on post band notability, for example: He is currently working as a gemologist and designer in Bangkok, Thailand[1][2] [3][4][5][6][7][8][9], etc. Brown has 11 published books. He has appeared on television in Thailand 30 times[10]. Over 200 articles about and also by Brown have been published in various magazines and newspapers in Bangkok, Asia and abroad[11] [12] [13] [14]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Ranard, Andrew (October 31, 1994). "Gemologist Focuses On the Spiritual". International Herald Tribune. p. 20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "The 9 Royal Gems". Bangkok Post Newspaper. December 1, 2006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "Thai Dealers Designs are Out of This World". Jewellery News Asia (Hong Kong). September, 1990. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ "Profile: Richard S. Brown - "Gem Expert Charts Path to the Stars"". Bangkok Post (Business News). May 19, 1997.
  5. ^ "Executive Life Style-The Accidental Gemologist". Singapore Business Times. October 30, 1993.
  6. ^ National Jeweler Magazine (1990). Gems Jewelry Looks to the Stars. National Jeweler USA.
  7. ^ Colored Stone Magazine (1996). Gemstone Guru. Colored Stone USA.
  8. ^ Hong Kong Standard (1988). Exploding Rock Mythology. Hong Kong Standard.
  9. ^ Jewelrers’ Circular-Keystone (1991). What’s New In Jewelry. JCK USA.
  10. ^ "Thai and English TV appearences". Retrieved 2007-01-30.
  11. ^ "Magazine and Newspaper Articles about and also by Brown". Retrieved 2007-01-30.
  12. ^ FOCUS (1991). Astral Fashion with Gemstone Talismans. The Nation Newspaper (Thailand).
  13. ^ Asia Magazine (1992). Cosmic Gemstones. Hong Kong.
  14. ^ Bangkok Gems & Jewellery Magazine (1993). A New Addition to the Crown Jewels of Thailand. BGJ Bangkok.

I have a list of many MORE references but it's already overkill. Over 300 articles have been published about Richard Shaw Brown and his work, AFTER the band. So by any standard I am more well known for my work after the band. Best wishes--Rsbj66 16:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?[edit]

I understand that Brown has been mentioned or featured in many magazine/newspaper articles and has appeared on television. What I would like to know is what was mentioned in those articles and programmes that makes Brown so interesting and notable? Billions of people around the world are always mentioned in papers and TV, but not continuously. There must be some theme or background that makes Brown the "go-to" guy for the journalists and reporters. What is that? His Gemology background? If so, why is gemology so notable? What's the difference between a gemologist and a jeweler? Can one be both? Is gemology a religion? Is it part occult like psychics? Is it science? Is it based on statistical analysis - therefore a mathematic study? What did Brown do for Planetary Gemology and what effect did Planetary Gemology have on the culture surrounding it? -- Emana 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

First thing is I'm a jewelery designer since 1975, a brand name, with totally unique and innovative designs which have received loads of free media coverage based on merit;

Second I'm also a gem expert, as a gemologist, from GIA, Gemology is a science of elite minerology and and highly respected knowledge concerning quality and ID of genuine and good quality gems v/s bad quality and fakes;

Thirdly I have developed (or accepted) my version of an already established field of metaphysical or astral or Planetary Gemology, that enables me to teach people how to cast birth charts and determine the best gem. I myself do this service free for VIPs, while sales staff do free for any interested people who visit any location.

Planetary Gemology is practiced by Hindus and Buddhists for centuries whereby 1) a qualified astrologer choose the best gem(s) along with an explanation as to why, then 2) obtaining a GOOD quality gem, then 3) getting it set in ususlly boring meaningless settings. Then they begin wearing on the day of the planet, like ruby for Sun to start wearing at Sunrise on Sunday, or Pearl for Moon on Monday, etc. Every Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, and others all know well about planetary gemology since ages. It is a combination of Jyotish with physical Gemology.

Because I am able to choose the gems (successfully), plus supply the fine quality natural gem, plus have my own designs, over 250 designs in 9 big hardbound book, which are becoming popular since last 31 years. And I put it all together as a completed talisman, with numbered certificate, and then sell at "jewelry value" with no charge for supposed powers or luck, which is simply a belief system among Asians, viz Planetary Gemology (Indian: Rasi or Ratna). Because I got all that together (starting from scratch after 12 years on the run, penniless) therefore I became known to millions, specially in Asia - Thailand - Singapore - Hong Kong. They don't care about my old band, they respect and love my designs and creations, and thus I have 30 sales staff running 6 locations plus free museum, and have a DB of about 40,000 persons for whom we have done free charts. Many of them are Clients, right from the top of Thai society.

In answer to your questions it is because of the unique beauty and quality of my creations and the special way we use astrology to choose gems, all have combined to interest the media all over the world. So we have received massive PR coverage. Just 2 days back I gave a TV interview... which makes 32 TV shows about me.

BTW: In my bio should it mention that I speak Hindi, Bengali, and Thai, and read Sanskrit and Hindi? That is stated in the International Herald Tribune article.

Emana, I'm not sure why you seem so adverse to my business. I am notable for my jewelry creations much more than for music. And I am supporting over 36 employees, rather, they're supporting me, and I'm not getting rich. I own a Thai company that pays taxes, keeps ONE set of accts., is noble, and metaphysical, and honest and fair. If otherwise I couldn't last. So please be respectful of my business just like for my band. There is nothing wrong with "making a living" and supporting my family and employees.--Rsbj66 23:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I am not personally attacking you or your business practices. I am asking you to present your articles in a more encyclopedic manner. I am not the only one reading these articles and definitely not the only one you need to convince. I will refrain from any further contact with your articles. You fight the lions alone. -- Emana 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


---Hi Emana, before, my article was not correctly created... and it was mostly you who taught me what to cleanup, and you who said if I could provide a few independent articles then you would be satisfied with me. The article, after your help, is now very neutral and short, and doesn't promote my livelyhood. I don't see why I have to fight any lions?? And thanks for the help--Rsbj66 15:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copies[edit]

I will gladly send Xerox copies of any articles, features, or interviews about me to any post address anyone likes. If Emana is interested to see what the articles say I'll gladly send you copies as directed. Really--Rsbj66 23:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Queen Sirikit Navaratna[edit]

Please merge any relevant content from Queen Sirikit Navaratna per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Sirikit Navaratna. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 23:38Z

What is the code for redirect?--125.25.134.139 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC) <---Oh! It is already done! Thanks.[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Richard Shaw Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Shaw Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Shaw_Brown&oldid=1211154416"