User talk:Rklawton

Dom Martin

To: Administrators Mgm, JNW, RkLawton, and ChildofMidnight: Apparently notability was not the only issue with my article about Dom Martin. Although administrator Rklawton has never communicated directly with me (Patricia Maier), I now find (in going to the link provided to me by JNW) [1] Rklawton has assumed that Dom Martin wrote and launched his own article, thus violating Wikipedia policy. This, then, appears to be the underlying cause for the speedy deletion of my article without further recourse to what might be called 'due process' procedures of Wikipedia. I come to this conclusion since in the communications posted on my talk page between administrators Mgm and JNW regarding my article, Mgm indicates “. . . it’s not suitable for speedy deletion”, and JNW wrote back “I was preparing to nominate it for WP:PROD when I noticed it was deleted by an administrator.”

I can assure you that I, Patricia Maier, the author of the article in question, am certainly not one and the same as the subject, Dom Martin. Not only do I look nothing like the artist, being of a completely different ethnic background, but I am a woman who was born on a different continent, in Washington State, USA, some years before this man was even alive! I can only assume that Rklawton reached this incorrect assumption since I share the same internet service provider with the subject, as do many individuals with computers in the same office or residence facility. If this is going to be the criteria for throwing out articles, based on one individual’s jumping to wrong conclusions, and others then being inspired to support that erroneous opinion, without further verification, then there is no justice to be found on Wikipedia!

In all fairness, I kindly request that my article please be reconsidered and put though the “deletion review process and article for deletion discussion process” which I understand from Mgm can be utilized, and wherein a consensus is required to delete the article. Patriciamaier2 (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is never a reason to delete an article. I deleted his article for lack of verifiable notability. And I've checked: Dom Martin initiated the first deleted article. And then, somehow completely out of the blue and two days later, you came along and recreated the very same article. Care to explain your relationship with Dom Marin? Rklawton (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Referring to your post above to me, Patricia Maier, you asked what my relationship is to Dom Martin.

I met Dom Martin many years ago in 1980 after viewing his artistic contribution of more than 60 paintings at the Bom Jesus Basilica, a World Heritage Monument. I am a person who was most impressed by the volume, scope and style of his artwork. As his artworks have remained on continuous exhibition in the Basilica Art Gallery since the 1970’s, and my close relationship with the artist has continued to the present time, I am also a person who felt inspired to write an article about Dom Martin. It seemed apparent to me that this was a significant enough exhibition, on a grand enough scale, for a lengthy period of time, in a globally significant monument visited by millions of people, to meet the Wikipedia guidelines under “Additional Criteria” for notability.

Of particular applicability, under “Creative Professionals” is the criterion: “the person’s work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition . . .” [emhasis added]

And under “Any Biography”: “The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.”

Again, as the Basilica Art Gallery is part of a World Heritage Monument, is principally devoted to the works of Dom Martin, and has been visited by millions of people from all over the world for more than several decades, it would certainly seem that the above criteria have been met.

It is not uncommon for the author of a biographical article about a living person to confer with the subject. In fact, given the problems that Wikipedia has experienced with people objecting to what people have written about them, it would seem very appropriate to go to the source to verify data. I worked on the article over a period of several weeks, at one point using Dom Martin’s computer to work on the article – perhaps this accounts for your thinking that he initiated the article, as I may have accessed Wikipedia after he had logged in using his user ID. However, I’m quite confused by your saying that the article was deleted and then recreated, as my recollection was that I initially input a rough draft on the Wikipedia edit box to work on reference links, but I thought it was only after I uploaded the final draft of the article that it was then tagged by JNW and then deleted by you. In any event, I hope the above information clears things up a bit for you.

As to your mention of verifiable notabiltiy, below are references, which span more than a quarter of a century of time, and substantiate the permanent display of the artworks of Dom Martin at the art gallery in the Bom Jesus Basilica, a World Heritage Monument in Old Goa, India:

http://www.archgoadaman.org/Dioceses/SFX/prog.html

http://christianartmuseum.goa-india.org/index.php?page=of-museums-and-more

http://www.dommartin.cc/Boise%20Vision%20article.htm

The first reference is to a page on the website for the Archdiocese of Goa, which contains a copy of the official brochure for the 2004 exposition of the body of St. Francis Xavier at the Bom Jesus Basilica, and states: “Art Gallery in the Basilica, featuring: a) paintings and crayons on Christian motifs by Dom Martin, well-known exponent of Surrealism, of Goan origin, now settled in the United States of America; . . .”

The second reference is to the website of the Christian Art Museum, Goa, India, which indicates: “The Bom Jesus Basilica art gallery. http://www.dommartin.cc/Basilica%20ptgs/Basilica%20ptgs%20index.htm This gallery was established in 1976 and quite easily, is the first and largest one of its kind in the eyes of onlookers. With the exception of the Archaeological Museum in Old Goa, the Basilica art gallery predates most -- if not all the galleries and museums mentioned above.” [Note the direct link on the Christian Art Museum website to the artwork of Dom Martin in the Bom Jesus Basilica Art Gallery.]

The third reference given above is to a photocopy of an article that appeared in a 1980 Boise Vision magazine [appended to Dom Martin’s website]. Boise Vision states: “In 1970, the Jesuit Rector of the Basilica, commissioned a relatively unknown painter, Dom Martin, to decorate the Basilica’s art gallery with paintings depicting the Saint’s [Francis Xavier] life as well as works illustrating other religious themes . . .”

Please reconsider your previous position and at least give my article a fair chance for deletion review by other editors and administrators. Perhaps there may be some suggestions for modification or additional verification of the article to make it acceptable. --Patriciamaier2 (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• If this guy was a notable artist, then we'd see numerous articles about him and his works. We don't. However, this looks like it's worth public debate. Since you clearly have a conflict of interest and should refrain from editing the article directly. You're welcome to submit ideas on the article's talk page. Next, due to our verifiability requirements, we can *not* "go to the source" for information. Best wishes. Rklawton (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Done a little more research and found that there was indeed a prior Dom Martin article that was deleted on November 24, 2006 for “copyvio”. If you recall, I wrote to you that I was confused about your reference to a Dom Martin article being deleted two days prior to mine, which was submitted on November 26, 2008. You had written me on your Talk page that: “Conflict of interest is never a reason to delete an article. I deleted his article for lack of verifiable notability. And I've checked: Dom Martin initiated the first deleted article. And then, somehow completely out of the blue and two days later, you came along and recreated the very same article . . .”. Rklawton (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the coincidence of the November dates, two days apart (albeit, also two years apart) was what prompted you to assume that I was not the author of the article but rather that Dom Martin had defiantly “recreated the very same article” two days after the first one had been deleted. It is distressing for me to see that not only has my own article about Dom Martin been deleted (and I am not presently attempting to resurrect the article), but also that I am still not even given credit for having written the article, since, on the deletion page, is your notation: “. . . self-created vanity article with no independent supporting sources.” In light of the fact that my article was created more than two years after a presumably self-created article was submitted and deleted for “copyvio”, it would seem appropriate you would edit your notation on the deletion page log to omit this reference to “self-created vanity article”. Also, I did certainly submit “independent supporting sources”, i.e.: (http://www.archgoadaman.org/Dioceses/SFX/prog.html http://christianartmuseum.goa-india.org/index.php?page=of-museums-and-more).--Patriciamaier2 (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Vincent Xavier Verodiano Award

After delving further into the complex structure of wikipedia’s objectives and guidelines, I am beginning to come to a better comprehension. As I now understand, when an article gets an AfD tag, it is subjected to discussion with the aim of either salvaging the article or sending it to the deletion chamber. It has further become apparent to me that the Vincent Xavier Verodiano Award article was deleted without giving it an opportunity to invite debate.

This article has been in Wikipedia for several years (I do not have access to the history to establish date of entry), and it went through the scrutiny of other administrators and was allowed to remain on the basis that it passed the notability test.

Below are additional links that will shed further light on the award’s notability: As you will note, none of the links originate or point to my website. The award consists of a citation, medal and a check. The cash value of the 2007 award was approx. $2,500.

Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/341775025.cms

Goa University http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:qnUcNjCK5hcJ:www.unigoa.ac.in/academic_staff.php%3Fstaffid%3D72+verodiano+award&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=21&gl=us

GoanVoice http://www.goanvoice.ca/2004/issue20/

GoaCom News Bulletin http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:7Cvvzr7UXfIJ:groups.google.co.in/group/soc.culture.indian.goa/tree/browse_frm/month/2003-11%3F_done%3D%252Fgroup%252Fsoc.culture.indian.goa%252Fbrowse_frm%252Fmonth%252F2003-11%253F%26+vincent+xavier+verodiano+award&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=24&gl=us

http://www.goacom.com/PFAgoa/award.htm

http://www.goacom.com/joel/news/2008/sep/19sep08.htm --Dommartin99 (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Never mind the blatant self-promotion, this "award" is not even close to being notable. Your own article was just deleted. I recommend giving it a rest. Rklawton (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

" Oh RkLawton, you just know everything and are my hero (sandwich)! cathytreks (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC) "

Dear Mr Lawton my apology's to you regarding whoever who was using my account. My name will not be used or be seen here or be a bother. I changed both my name and password. --cathitreks (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DenisHume's indef block - why was it extended?

Why the extension of DenisHume (talk · contribs) from one week to indefinite? Did something happen in the nearly 5 hours that he was blocked for 7 days to warrant an extension? Full disclosure: I petitioned Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to shorten the block, he gave an adequate reason for why my petition should be declined. But indefinite? That implies something new happened after Protonk's block or Protonk missed some very important information when limiting the block to 1 week. So, why the indefinite block? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The only implication is that I disagreed with the original length of the block. DenisHume's stated purpose for the account violated WP:SOAP and his behavior consistently violated WP:CIVIL. As a result, I gave his account the same treatment I would give any other new account created for the purpose of vandalism. Rklawton (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to second-guess other admins, then I could just as easily lift the block entirely because I disagree with your block. I'll leave it to Protonk to do that, but I must say that banning a user for a couple angry statements seems to be WP:BITE. kwami (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

True. Note that this case involves more than a couple angry statements. Every post indicates the intent to violate SOAP and/or inflict incivility upon dedicated contributors. Rklawton (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This user's account was clearly not created for the purpose of vandalism. Yes, he was only concerned with the one issue and yes, he was clearly employing unacceptable levels of incivility, which he accepts. To deprive him of any chance to redeem himself is absurdly harsh, and very inconsistent with the second, third and hundredth chances given to other users far more disruptive than this guy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that DenisHume violated his block by making this post from an IP to the same talk page he has been disrupting for days. He is obviously here for no other purpose. His incivility is about as extreme as anything I've seen on Wikipedia. He calls other editors rapists and pedophiles and tells them he wishes they were dead. Excellent block. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The last block-violating IP post was very unfortunate, I'll agree. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is grounds to extend the block. IMHO the original 1 week was a bit too long but it's within the "acceptable range" for an editor with his history. I won't strongly object to doubling it to 2 weeks providing his edit talk page is opened up at least a few days before so he can have a chance to talk. I's prefer it be kept at 1 week with talk page privileges restored 3 or 4 days beforehand. This will give us a chance to see if his attitude has changed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a long precedent for indef blocking accounts that are 100% problematic, and it's clear we have such a case now, and this case is much more serious than a trivial vandalism spree. Rklawton (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be confusing maliciously-disruptive accounts and accounts created by someone who is in a highly emotional state. The former are here with the intent to disrupt, good riddance to them until they cease being bad people. The latter are here to contribute they either just don't know how or are so emotionally wound up that they are unable to be constructive today. They would benefit from a mentor and short and if necessary repeated blocks until they decide to either work within the system or they decide maybe it's better if they spend their time elsewhere. I believe this user fits in the 2nd category. He is obviously emotionally charged, but unlike vandals, I don't think this person's goal is to wreck the project or deliberately waste people's time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, his user page states that it's his intent to change Wikipedia - and all his edits support this - and worse. Rklawton (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

His user page doesn't say that. It's a critique (unhelpful and inaccurate, in my view) of Wikipedia process and of Wiki editors and admin as a whole. A bit of a rant, but I think there's a clear difference between this guy, who appears to be well-intentioned but currently unacceptably volatile, and the usual vandals and timewasters. There could well be a decent editor in there if he familiarises himself with what is and isn't acceptable and recognises that other people's points of view are of equal value to his own. Some editors do start participating on Wikipedia much as they would on an internet forum. Once they realise that the two are entirely different, they fit in just fine. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Rklawton--
If I may be so bold, I would like to state that I respectfully disagree with your position. It is my belief that there is a fair-to-middling chance that User:DenisHume will become a productive editor. I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt now that he has strongly implied that he has calmed down.
--NBahn (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Block altered

Rklawton, I adjusted the block to allow Denis to edit his talk page. The length remains unchanged. If you aren't happy with this, please feel free to change it back. As for your original extension of the block, I have no comment(edit: what I meant to say was that I refuse to outright criticize it or wholeheartedly endorse it. I pretty plainly had a comment. :) ). When I originally reached for the block button my first inclination was "indefinite", but I decided against that. I feel that an indefinite block for the user is within your discretion but I also can understand arguments that the user could come around and edit productively (though this seems exceedingly unlikely). As for the general complaints above about blocking users for having 'unacceptable views', I'm not at all convinced. Denis wasn't blocked for having unacceptable views about content or policy. He was blocked for disruption and hostility. One can hold the view that Virgin Killer's album cover represents child abuse without accusing wikipedia editors of the same. It is not suppression of speech to demand that. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections, and I appreciate the thought you've put into this. Rklawton (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Joint Barnstar for finding an acceptable solution to the DenisHume block

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		I give this jointly to User:Protonk and User:Rklawton for quickly finding a way to head off rising dissension surrounding the block of User:DenisHume and to allow him to communicate with the community and, if he chooses to do so, eventually to show that he can become a valued Wikipedia editor. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees, it just means there's a resolution everyone can accept. I think we have consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

An old issue

Hi. I was looking through the history of an editor because of an issue over inserting a questionable external link to the Anne Frank article when I came across an old Abraham Lincoln death photo issue. I read through parts of it, but to be honest, not all of it, so it may have had a different outcome than how it was proceeding. In any event, I have a point about all of this. The discussion of the image claimed that it was taken at the White House during the time he was being embalmed and prepared for laying in state. I recently read a book which, at one point, discusses the autopsy proceedings for Lincoln and from that, I can't see how that image could be an authentic photo of Lincoln. The autopsy was extensively documented and I'm not thinking that mortician skills were such at that time that signs from extensive autopsy examination of Lincoln's head could be so well hidden (not to mention the magical beard) that a photo would not betray it. Quite an interesting exchange over this issue. Have a nice new year. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The "photograph" is likely a study Bachelder did for his painting of Lincoln reading the emancipation proclamation to his cabinet. It's almost identical to the face in his painting "The Last Hours of Lincoln". The one Lincoln photo buff (Ostendorf) who supported the death-photograph theory died shortly after publishing his updated collection of Lincoln photos but before he could have his work peer reviewed. I exchanged e-mails with another scholar (the one who found the only unchallenged postmortem photo and who made Lincoln his academic career), and he was skeptical of Ostendorf's claims (as are others). However, this comprises original research and so wouldn't belong in an article. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the community of Lincoln scholars has a chance to publish peer-reviewed opinions. Article edits on this subject should wait for them. Rklawton (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have plans to edit about this, it's just something I came across while looking at that editor's history. The first thing that crossed my mind was that this does not appear to be a photo of someone who had just had an autopsy performed to the extent described in the book I'd read, or indeed, someone who lived several hours after having been shot in the head, and wanted to comment without stirring anything up! Happy new year. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Some traces of scam left in Oxyhydrogen article

Hi,

just noticed that the Oxyhydrogen article references US patent 4936961 of Stanley Meyer, and also lists one image from that patent. Given the fraudulent nature of Stanley Meyer's claims (i.e. perpetual motion) these ought to be removed I think. I didn't want to edit the page myself given that I don't have an account and don't understand much of wikipedia policies.

cheers,

David 130.149.19.1 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, just realized that the short 'Automotive' section of Oxyhydrogen already does some criticism. But since the image File:Water_fuel_cell_capacitor.png still isn't referenced in that section, it looks like a leftover from earlier edits. If kept, at least the name Stanley Meyer should be linked for clarity. David 130.149.19.1 (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - updated per your suggestions. Rklawton (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Defused

Hey, hope I replied to your message right haha. Yeah, I might need some help. I'm from Mt. Vernon and I kinda know some of the guys in the band. I've sent an email to Mt. Vernons local newspaper to see if they can do an online article on the band, but that might take a while to get up. XM638 (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A local paper will help demonstrate that the band exists, but it won't demonstrate notability beyond local, and that won't be enough. Check out the notability requirements for bands/groups and see if the band can work toward any of those requirements. I listened to some of their music yesterday, and I liked the sound. Rklawton (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You did? =-D Awesome haha, I think they are a pretty cool band.... But hmmm.... what if I had some kind of proof that they were played on KSHE? XM638 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FM Station - very local. Good market, but still local. Rklawton (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not My Picture! you are right I was wrong.

What makes one believe it is right and proper to just take down a photo of myself and my brother? and just what is it that you are implying?, As I recall it was taken on the steps of a townhouse building in New York City in December of 1969, when I was 12 years old, by my then living uncle, and was not taken from any television programme and while it has been used elsewhere with my permmisions, by myself on several varied websites and other media regarding my early work as a child actress RKlawton. Really should it be up to me to prove MY property is MY property?, in fact under the WIKI RULE'S that you know is true, you know well you are allowed to challenge and attempt to prove me otherwise, Please do so without gile threats towards me or my account?,as I have been polite about this entire matter and believe in this particular instance that I am in my rights to question your action at the least without fear of retribution, when done properly and without malice, or am I wrong, Sir? cathie (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Really Sir, you do not know know me or who I really am,and I only ask for the right to appeal what you have implied?, I am not a liar or a thief and I claim the rights to me in my photograph of in spite of words to the contrary, Surely it is a just a mistake perhaps in the warning, and so you need to know the facts, may I write you at your personal address?, that should satisfy you regarding my claims as fact.

In the days ahead may I post another Photograph but not this specific photo per your specific written warning and letter of the Wiki TOS, is that alright?

The new photograph posted shall be taken from the same time period, and then you shall be able to say perhaps "Gee I was mistaken" to me, and not challenge the new one, all under the fair WIKI rules, Is this acceptable for you Sir, Mr. RKLawton?, In the meanwhile I shall abide as you say. Xie xie --cathie (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Rklawton (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The picture was put up mistakenly, sorry I picked the wrong picture, I better get out my glasses b4 I pick my photos out of my vault! my bad. --cathie (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Think what you will, I hardly ever go to my front page, and only this, my talk is bookmarked by me, and I am telling you the truth, However I shall be correcting my honest mistake on that front page now, with apologys to all around, hoping THAT will that appease you, good day Sir. --cathie (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry my eyes had failed in my posting of a picture some years ago, at a page I never look at, are you trying to bait me on a honest mistake?, well Sir, PLEASE assume good faith and think otherwise?, as being mean and hurtful to me is not the answer, Please I beg, this not like before when we debated about Lincoln before you became a Administrator Sir, I respect you! and so it is with respect and respectfully I am asking you to grant me leave to go as I grant you your due, and say goodnight and good day, and peace.... my old "debating" friend? --cathie (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)