User talk:Patkelso

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Patkelso, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.  Again, welcome! Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Robert Kelso Sr[edit]

Hi, I reverted your additions of links to papers by Robert Kelso Sr because they did not fit the format of Wikipedia, were in the form of WP:SPAM, and seemed to be WP:COI. My reasons may seem technical but they are fundamental to Wikipedia. I would suggest you read through some of the links above re: how to add material to Wikipedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Perspective projection distortion, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Please also note adding links to your own website (May I draw your attention to and suggesting editors use them is considered source soliciting. I have removed those. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I take your point in re editing the talk page. I mistakenly edited it in the belief that it would edify the posters. There is a problem, however. My own work is the only reference that was/is apropos the said posters and also Perspective projection distortion which I am trying to improve – per the Wikipedia header suggestion. My work represents new science. If I am precluded from using this, lets part friends. Patkelso (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Pat Kelso

You are not am precluded from editing the article per WP:SELFCITE, you just have to kinda know the ins and outs of Wikipedia re:
  • Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.
Some other pointers:
  • Wikipedia articles are intended to explain a topic to a layman. You may be going a bit too deep and "textbook" in your additions.
  • You should not mark an article "EDIT IN PROGRESS" but instead workout your edit ideas on your own personal version of the page such as creating User talk:Patkelso/Perspective projection distortion. Once your done you can copy it over to the real page.
  • If your work "represents new science" it doesn't belong in Wikipedia until it is published and peer reviewed. Wikpedia does not publish new thought, it summarizes whats already published out there in MANY reliable sources. If its not already already published out there in MANY reliable sources then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, but it may belong in one of the Wikimedia sister projects.
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the time and effort it took for your reply.

  • RE: "Wikipedia articles are intended to explain a topic to a layman." It seems unrealistic to expect a "how to" explanation and then address the inevitable distortions. It would be too voluminous. Therefore, I took great care (note the italics) to post this in the Introduction:

The following explanation assumes a knowledge of the graphics protocols for creating a perspective projection (drawing) and found in most engineering graphics tomes. I tried to make the depth of my post no greater than to fit this criteria.

  • In re: "If its not already published out there in MANY reliable sources then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia ...." The are many inconsistences and contradictions in the established literature by 'reliable sources' which have been in place, in some cases, for centuries. For instance, one can find references that the focal point of the eye is on the retina and then again at the center of the retina sphere. (The latter is correct.) It is not unreasonable then that my corrective, Treatise On Perspective should be slow to gain currency. My only defense is that my paper is published on Scribd and has been read over 1300 times without criticism though I invited it.
  • I await your advice as to whether I should continue with my editing or try the Wikimedia sister projects about which I know even less than Wikipedia. Patkelso (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Pat Kelso
The problem I am seeing is that the original article was pretty bad and it hasn't gotten much better. Re: "explanation assumes a knowledge of the graphics protocols".... err no, that's not Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a text book or instruction manual (see WP:NOTGUIDE). Wikipedia is some guy (like me) walking up to you on the street and saying "What is perspective projection distortion?... where am I going to see it? ..... what causes it? .... how is it dealt with? ..... whats its history? .... what are the other topics related to? .... whats it got to do with the cost of tea in China?" The lead should cover all those points, the article should cover that with details cited to published text on the subject. Going beyond that is going beyond Wikipedia. If you can clean up the article to make it better along those lines that would be great. If you have brand new information on the topic that is not what Wikipedia is about.
I would not go by my say-so on any of this, I am just another editor who is comparing the article to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You can always read through those yourself to see where things stand. There is also Help:Contents with the Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:Teahouse for other people who can help. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Have a good life. Patkelso (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Pat Kelso

Your edits[edit]

I see some here ---> User:Patkelso/sandbox You can find your own edits by going to your name or talk page, clicking open "Tools" to the left, then clicking "User contributions" ....hope this helps. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

For anyone: note the illustration in the section Perspective projection entitled, Perspective of geometric solid using two vanishing points. The derivation technique is not one with which I am familiar but it seems manifest that the image is not as titled. The obvious clue is the square face of the object shows as truly square whereas in two-point perspective it would show as a rhombus. Furthermore, if the model were turned so that the square face did, indeed, show as a true square, then the square face on the opposing side would also show truly square (and smaller due to foreshortening) -- all of which is now the case in the image, except, the receding axis would then not be seen, which it now does.Patkelso (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Move to sandbox[edit]

Hi, The best way I can think of to move a whole article to a sandbox is to click edit for the whole article, highlight and copy the whole article, click on your sandbox at the top of the page, and paste it in. Hope this helps. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A tip'o me hat to ya!Patkelso (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Perspective projection concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Perspective projection, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)