User talk:Mr man1951

Problems with upload of File:Archetypal Function 0003.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Archetypal Function 0003.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am screwing up this uploading of pics and etc. royally. In some cases I tried simply to eliminate the offending image from the catalog--without success. Then I tried to re-upload a file in order to get the form to fill out with the desired information--which, btw is hardly obvious, e.g., What is the source--have you any notion how broad a word that is, especially to a newbie who hasn't been to law school? I filled in all the information pieces, apparently incorrectly. What's a genius to do? They need simplicity as much as the village idiot. Reading minds isn't what they teach at college, is it now?

Suppose I am taking a table from a published book in which the publisher and I jointly hold the copyright (as is the case for some of these improper uploads). As a scholar, that basically will fall under the usual fair use doctrine, and the accountability is answered by referencing the material IN THE TEXT. Why I am having to select from a host of irrelevant licensing elements that no judge would care about is beyond me. The reason the law made the fair use concept simple and streamlined was specifically to do two things: 1) let scholars be scholars and not lawyers, and 2) ensure the maximum breadth of application. The lissues of liability have generated licenses piled on licenses in total violation of the spirit of the original law. Of course for software things are a bit different. But the work of scholars isn't much affected by the mode--book, film, wikipedia, etc. Accountability is accountability regardless the outlet.

So now you know why I am absurdly ignorant of all this licensing stuff. Never ever had to bother with it.

I need to see some examples germane to the items I was uploading so I can use them as templates to give you the information you want. Any suggestions?

Mr man1951 (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Archetypal Function.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Archetypal Function.JPG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Paradigm-I Ching.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Paradigm-I Ching.JPG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Semiotic Traits.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Semiotic Traits.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Table of Contents.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Table of Contents.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cover art, The Office and its Stewardship.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cover art, The Office and its Stewardship.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010[edit]

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to the page File:Archetypal Function 0003.jpg. Blank pages can confuse readers, and are overall not helpful to the Wikipedia project; furthermore, blanking a page is not the same as deleting it.

If the article you blanked is a duplicate of another article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate revision. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please use the appropriate deletion process. elektrik SHOOS 05:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Archetypal Function 0003.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Archetypal Function 0003.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Salavat (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Archetypal Function.JPG[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Archetypal Function.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Salavat (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cover art, The Office and its Stewardship.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cover art, The Office and its Stewardship.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Charles S. Herrman[edit]

The article Charles S. Herrman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No verifiable notability, sources are self-published Web page or vanity press publishers, Google Books and Google Scholar don't turn up anything published by this person.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wtshymanski (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are under sockpuppetry investigation[edit]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr man1951. Thank you. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles S. Herrman. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Guy Macon (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles S. Herrman, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles S. Herrman "caviling"[edit]

Yes, you are right. It was taken from Wikipedia:Notability (people), which is the English Wikipedia notability guideline for persons. I fear that the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles S. Herrman is taking a turn for the worse. The only possibilities I can see are:

1. show them the largest possible number of published and reliable secondary sources (journals/newspapers, magazines, books, academic publications, radio/telly ...) about him.

2. A list of awards, honours, and/or nominations.

3. Widely recognized contributions in his specific field (metaphysic and philosophy).

4. Probably, it is too late to request the intervention of an expert in the subject, but you can try to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy (talk) and ask their opinion. I do not know how much that project is still active, but I hope it might be helpful.

All the best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The primary reason why the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles S. Herrman is taking a turn for the worse is Charles S. Herrman's continued personal attacks. The primary reason why the page will be deleted is the lack of any of the items you listed above, other than material generated by Mr. Herrman himself. This refusal to accept Wikipedia policy on civility and notability is the cause of Mr. Herrman's troubles, not some vast conspiracy against him.

The above four points are is good advice, but impractical. There are no reliable sources showing notability. He has not published in any peer reviewed journal. No newspaper has written anything about him (blog replies and letters to the editor don't count, having been created by Mr. Herrman himself.) He has not published any books other than ones published by an outfit that will publish anything for a price. There is no evidence of notability because he quite simply is not notable.

Feel free to prove me wrong by putting citations establishing notability into the page, but read WP:RS first. Do that and I promise you that I will post a full apology for the above. Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to thank me, Mr. man1951, I am only trying to be of some help. All editors are more than welcome and I would like to say that Wikipedia is not only the best encyclopedia ever written in human history, but a community.

Dear Guy Macon.
How do you think a mother feels when she is threatened with having her child taken away? Mr. man1951 is "new" to Wikipedia and its sister projects, and he has little knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but I think that Mr. man1951 feels like the mother of the above example, because of this deletion discussion and for all the time and intellectual effort spent on that article. I think, therefore I am (Latin: cogito ergo sum; French: je pense donc je suis)–René Descartes (1596–1650)... (I'm joking ~ lol) ... I do not think that it is possible to say that it was a real "personal attack", but just a human reaction to what is probably meant by Mr. man1951 as an "injustice". An old saying of the ancient Romans said: "dura lex sed lex" ("harsh law, but it's the law") ... but I believe and hope that for newcomers, as in this case, we can and must make an exception. After all, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, and structural metaphysics is a branch of a branch, and there are not so many philosophers in the world in this area. Although, you and me have two different and opposite opinions about that article and its own "life" on Wikipedia, I think that we are talking the same language. Do you? I really hope that with our advices we all can come to a conclusion (a happy ending) that will satisfy everyone, and especially the encyclopedia itself. It is not necessary for you to reply to me, but if you want to, please, place a talkback and/or write me a message on my talk page. I am at your disposal. All the best and happy editing to you both. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, I am completely open to seeking a solution that will satisfy everyone. It doesn't look like the article meets Wikipedia standards for notability and reliable sources, and thus it is very likely to end up deleted, which is likely to result in more personal attacks from Charles S. Herrman and him being banned from Wikipedia for same.

There is, however, hope. It is possible for Charles S. Herrman to gain the notability he currently lacks and thus be eligible to have the page restored. You can help (or perhaps one of Mr. Herrman's supporters wants to help, so I will leave detailed instructions geared toward a newbie below)

First, go to the page as it is now, click on the edit button, then cut and paste the raw wikimarkup to a text editor such as Microsoft Notebook. Save it in three places. Likewise with the images it contains, save them as well. Now you have what you need to restore the page should he become notable, or to move it to another Wiki.

Next, look to see if the material fits the criteria of another Wiki. Many Wikis exist that don't jhave the same notability criteria as Wikipedia, Here are some suggestions:

Scholarpedia: http://www.scholarpedia.org/

Biographicon: http://www.biographicon.com/

Wikibooks: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Subject:Philosophy

Citizendium: http://en.citizendium.org/

Also see: Wikipedia:Alternative outlets.

After that, it is simply a matter of Mr. Herrman's trying to get his theories noted by independent reliable sources such as peer-reviewed journals.

Guy Macon (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advices, Guy Macon. I hope they will help. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope all is well...[edit]

I'm fine, thanks for asking, hope you are well too.
I'm not sure if I understood you correctly. Did you write to Guymacon on its talk page, by email or something else? Anyway, to see the old discussions in Guymacon's talk page you have to click the "View history" link on top of that page (but this depends on the skin that you are using). In any case, the following is the link: "User talk:Guymacon&action=history". I took a look at it, but I found just two posts of yours (as Mr man1951):

If you have more evidences and sources about notability, I think it would be best to drop these evidences in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles S. Herrman.

I copied the last version of Charles S. Herrman article for you (this version).

–pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What goes where[edit]

Just a friendly reminder of what goes where in case anyone gets confused.

The page "Charles S. Herrman" is for material about the person named Charles S. Herrman. (It is a biography of a living person). As such, it has to meet all Wikipedia standards for notability and reliable sources.)

The page "Talk:Charles S. Herrman" is for discussing ways to improve the article named "Charles S. Herrman".

Same with any other article talk page; they are for discussing ways to improve the articles they are attached to.

The page "User:Mr man1951" is a place for the user named Mr man1951 (who happens to be Charles S. Herrman) to put pretty up much whatever he wants subject to the ordinary rules (no personal attacks, no copyright violations...) Nobody else should mess with it unless to correct a violation.

Same with any other user page.

The page "User talk:Mr man1951" is for discussing the user named Mr man1951. (Thanks, user warnings, etc.) and to leave material that he may find useful. Mr man1951 is free to delete anything placed here; he "owns" the page.

Same with any other user talk page.

The page "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles S. Herrman" is for discussing whether or not to delete the page "Charles S. Herrman" This is the only place where evidence of notability is guaranteed to be seen by the admins who have to decide whether to delete the article.

It is a common error to talk about an article on a user talk page or to talk about a user on an article talk page. Such comments often get ignored, simply because nobody thinks to look in that place for that material.

Always sign your posts to talk pages with ~~~~, and do not sign your edits to articles.

I hope this helps. Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, these remarks are not only friendly but supremely helpful and I thank you heaps. Unbelievably, in fact. Stuff like this should be made REALLY visible and in your face for newbies. I now also know why it is I should regularly check this page. Prior to recent events I never did. Duh. So let's see here... ~~~~

Minor correction. the "nowiki" before and after the four tyldes means "show these just as they are; don't substitute the username" Try this: hit the preview button and look at what your signature looks like. then delete the nokiki tags (delete the <, >, and / too) and preview again. See the difference? Now save.

Thank you so very much for your kind words[edit]

And, I can understand how you feel and I'm very sorry for this situation.

Sue Gardner of the Wikimedia Foundation commented the Editor Trends Study in the March 2011 Update at strategy.wikimedia.org. The results are not good. Gardner noticed that lots of people, who are trying to become Wikipedia editors, are failing to integrate into the Wikipedia community, which means that the Wikimedia community had become too hard to penetrate.

The result is that "newbies" (new editors of the English Wikipedia, but it is about the same for Wikipedia in other languages and other sister projects) are making up a smaller percentage of editors overall than ever before, and this makes harder for new editors/contributors to join Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure that the number of arbitration processes, articles for deletion, reverted edits, user warnings, sockpuppet investigations, and etcetera is growing. Of course, I totally agree with Sue Gardner deductions and especially when she wrote that "we need to make editing fun again for everybody: both new editors and experienced editors."

I fear that the decision regarding the deletion of the article will be made within just one day or less. So, please, provide all possible evidences on the talk page and in the kindest possible way. For example, was Charles Hartshorne's quote, “a brilliant thinker and writer”, really published by Encyclopaedia Britannica on its 15th edition? That would be a great "proof" of notability, but I got it on Amazon and unfortunately I do not have that edition in hand at the moment. There is no time to lose!

Take care and all the very best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No edition of Encyclopedia Britannica makes any mention of Charles S. Herrman. If it did, that would support a claim of notability, but it doesn't.

The actual claim made is that Encyclopedia Britannica 15th edition called Charles Hartshorne "the world’s greatest living metaphysician" and that Hartshorne called Herrman "a brilliant thinker and writer." The latter claim is documented on Hermann's web site at [ http://www.csherrman.com/charles-hartshorne/ ] and appears to be a letter of reference. All very interesting, but even if we confirm the claim, a letter of reference is not evidence of notability. Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making editing Wikipedia fun again is a worthwhile goal, but not by abandoning everything Wikipedia stands for, and the policies on notability and reliable sources are part of the core that makes Wikipedia what it is. Pjoef could do a lot towards making editing Wikipedia fun again by encouraging Mr man195 to stop engaging in personal attacks, be civil, and stop telling everyone that he is superior to them. His comments create a hostile environment - not fun at all. Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility, please[edit]

Hi there, I know it's frustrating that editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles S. Herrman don't seem to be listening to you, but please try your best to give other editors their due respect; the tone you took in your most recent post doesn't really do anything to help the discussion along. Please also keep in mind that the discussion taking place there is most definitely not a referendum on the validity of Mr. Herrman's work. Thanks, Mildly Mad^T_C 01:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Archetype Function.jpg[edit]

The file File:Archetype Function.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:The Archetypal Paradigmatic Function.jpg[edit]

The file File:The Archetypal Paradigmatic Function.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]