Jump to content

User talk:Tony Fox

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BwburkeLetsPlays (talk | contribs) at 20:47, 8 December 2010 (Notification: RFD posting of Pingas. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia ad for Wikipedia:WikiProject Singapore
Wikipedia adsfile info – show another – #207

Since I'm lazy: if you leave a message here, please look back here for responses. I'll try and figure out that 'talkback' thing at some point and let you know I've responded.

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page. Thanks!

Stuff I've been given


The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010


Hello Tony Yes, Wikipedia has a definition of "short film." A prime thing re "video short" though is that enormously more people use video for productions than film. Even bigtime movies are now partly made with video, not film. Things we see on the I'net are video - 99% of what we see on YouTube is produced in video, not film. I mentioned before some stuff I'd written re "video short" - haven't sent it, but here it is. This will broaden perspective on present-day short videos:

• Video short

Video shorts are typically 3 to 15 minutes long, usually professionally or semi-professionally made. Video shorts commenced in the 1960s - many for business, education, documentaries, and TV news, also for video competitions. Video shorts are computer edited. Corporations produce video shorts to let people know about the essence of their products. Online businesses have started moving ahead with video shorts, not just with commercials but also for specific products and services. The shorts can also be promotional and educational.

There is a difference between video shorts and video clips. Scenes are usually shot better for video shorts than for video clips; clips are usually by amateurs. Cameras are often hand-held when shooting clips, making scenes bounce around; locations usually aren’t bouncing around though. For video shorts, skilled camera people often use a tripod with a dolly, or a Steadicam, to smoothly move the camcorder closer to subjects for steady images. On the other hand, people making video clips usually get closer or farther from what they’re shooting by “zooming” in and out rather than moving the camera closer to or farther from main subjects.

Corporations now produce video shorts for their websites. People usually prefer to watch videos about companies rather than just read about them. Of course, videos raise the number of people going to websites. TV stations, as well as national networks and websites, also produce video shorts for broadcast and for the Internet. Video shorts tend to be more serious than video clips. Also, carefully produced music videos are video shorts, not video clips.

A chief value of short videos (video shorts and video clips) is that people generally prefer not to watch long videos on the Internet. Shorts effectively convey essentials of products, services and happenings, etc. Long videos and movies, on the other hand, are typically watched on TV and DVDs. Video shorts on the I’net show issues, products, and happenings, also views of past, present and future. Video clips typically show brief events, occurrences and funny things. Both video shorts and video clips, being relatively short, often expand knowledge of things beyond text.

• Video clips - (Wikipedia now has this definition)

In comparison, “video clips” are often relatively amateurish. The term “video short” came out before “video clip.” A video clip is defined as “a short clip of video recording.” Clips sometimes show surprising events - unexpected happenings and consequences, but they are generally informal. Video clips are primarily viewed on the Internet.

Video shorts became common in the 1970s and were usually professionally made. Video clips took off in 2005, mostly on YouTube. Most of what’s on YouTube are clips made by amateurs. Some clips are portions of relatively long productions - short extracts from movies or television programs, often funny happenings and events. Video clips are generally “non-serious.” Most clips are made by amateurs - about 80% of what’s on YouTube are made by amateurs.

Very much look forward to your response on this. I think "video short" is unquestionably a real "category" that needs to be known/accepted/used. Thank you much.

Mike Cady CadyMike (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Hamilton vandalism

I note you blocked an IP for 2 days for racist vandalism to the Lewis Hamilton article. Per my note at WP:AN, I'd say that 2 weeks would be a better block, given the clear warning that shows when editing the article. What do you think? Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That IP had no other edits prior to pulling on the white sheets and firing up the computer (you'd think it would be difficult to see the monitor through the hood). I figured 48 hours would be appropriate; if it shows that it's a dedicated IP by continuing on after the block ends, then yeah, longer blocks would be good. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in, but it might be of interest to you guys that all these vandal edits are by the same person - he just changes his IP. There was an SPI here - my bet is to just keep blocking the IPs without giving him any leeway. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's that same shmuck? Ugh. *headshakes* Not much to do but play whack-a-mole, apparently. Wonder if an abuse report would be useful. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010


Human Design

Now improving the article here User:Mikemahalo/Human_Design

Thank you for your comment on the deletion review. I believe the proposed new article stub was and is fine by wikipedia guidelines, although borderline, it is on the right side of the border. The notability lurched onto the radar when Harper Collins decided to publish a book with this title, reference now added. There are multiple secondary sources, Pacha magazine obtained a world exclusive interview. Others exist, mostly in local press around the planet, as media coverage is suppressed by the Jovian Archive corporation and their lawyers. I believe that many people on all sides of the debate on Human Design are ready and willing to contribute to improving the article on wikipedia, it does not belong to Mike Mahalo as a topic, that is not a place to find it. It belongs in mainspace, what exactly is the problem beyond some minor fuss? Give it time, no rush, please rethink this admin decision.

Currently any search of wikipedia finds nothing - the topic itself has also been suppressed, this is heavy handed. Please reconsider in the spirit of what wikipedia is, what Human Design is, and how to best proceed in the interests of all who want to know more about this.


Finally WP:IMPERFECT--Digital witchdoctor (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Cheyne Capital Management

I have noticed that you moderated the Cheyne Capital Management back in February 2010, and I was wondering whether you could possibly intervene in yet another edit-warring on this article; and also could you remove the malicious information on the Marie Douglas entry posted by the same user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.194.36.214)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.42.115 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it, and have started a deletion discussion on the Douglas article as she is of suspect notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed the line

Here --- block him. -- GunMetal Angel 20:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bagged, tagged, and hopefully educated. 72 hour block; keep me notified if after that he does it again. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, bro. • GunMetal Angel 04:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Assist

I think I may need some help; if you would, please assist upon helping with this because I'm not totally sure how to handle it all. He's been making non-encyclopedic additions to this article and then left me that message after I reverted the edits a few times. The message he left me explains it all, but like I said, I'm still not completely sure how to completely cope upon this situation. • GunMetal Angel 04:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I think you want to ensure he knows that Wikipedia isn't for class projects, and that even if he's doing a class project he needs to remember that there are rules to follow. Point him towards RS, V and such and hopefully he'll get the idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this isn't too much to ask but... can you inform him? • GunMetal Angel 22:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into it later. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. • GunMetal Angel 06:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Still continues

I suggest blocking him again. • GunMetal Angel 00:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think he deliberately made that edit today after I'd given him the warning last night. Ah well. Indefinite block it is. Keep an eye out on his favourite targets, I'm wondering if there's some sockpuppetry involved here. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

helllo

how long have you been a furry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.26.7 (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A while. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like a few years? Or one year? or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.47.154 (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a while. Why? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Songfacts (2nd nomination)

You might wanna take a look at this AFD. Gary King is trying to pass off ultra-trivial mentions as suitable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsune at Fushimi

A pair of foxes

I wonder if this kabuki performance here might have interested you?

  • Fushimi inari torii mae (Before the Torii Gate at the Inari Fox Shrine at Fushimi)—Act 2, Scene 1 of Yoshitune Sembon Zakura (Yoshitsune and the Thousand Cherry Trees).
  • Ebizo Ichikawa XI as kitsune in white -- streaming video here, 1:33 mins.

Just a thought? Following up a dim memory from a few months ago? --Tenmei (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you for pointing that out! That's a very interesting performance - shame I'm on the wrong continent. *g* Tony Fox (arf!) 04:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Speedy deletion of The Order (AW)

This article wasn't eligible for G4 deletion because it was originally speedied while an AFD was pending, for non-content reasons (created by banned user). I was about to mark it this way when you deleted it. It might be a G5 candidate, but that would ordinarily require an SPI or similar determination, since the creator is a new account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new account recreated, precisely, two pages that had been deleted before it showed up. The previous sock of User:Pickbothmanlol was blocked about 14 hours before this account was created. WP:DUCK is in play here. If you want to DRV it, have at, but it's obviously another sock. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no argument with that at all, but technically I think it should have been entered as G5 rather than G4. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I keep forgetting we have that one. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: "Yeval" by C. W. Schultz. Can I put back up?

Hello, how are you? You nominated this novel for deletion a few years ago, and I came across a list compiled by Utica Public Library in regards to its content and target audience, which was listed among many other novels that Wikipedia has articles for. [1] Since the actual library and website are notable, I’m not quite clear if this succeeds WP:NOTBOOK, so I thought I’d ask before taking the time to re-create the article. Many other people--who appear to be unfortunately non-notable by Wikipedia standards--have also commented on the content of the book and have given favorable reviews of the overall story and theme. I’m pretty anxious to get the article I helped create back on Wikipedia again, so please let me know if this is acceptable. Thank you very much. Best, Geeky Randy (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. You're always welcome to recreate an article that's been deleted so long as it's well referenced. In the earlier case of this book, it was a self-published book by an unknown author with absolutely no coverage in outside sources. With that link, it's, well... a self-published book by an unknown author with one link to a rather bad list of books said to appeal to male readers. (So guys like violent, creepy books? Wow, who wrote that list? Yeesh.) A Google search still turns up no further references that could be considered reliable - there are some Wikipedia mirrors that seem to have caught some pages when there were references to the book included in them, a number of similar comments that look to be mirrored, but no independent reviews or anything that would make it stand up as a notable novel. Sorry to say it, but the chances of this one becoming notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia are very, very slim. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. So, perhaps waiting for a review by a more notable site—say… The Observer—then it would be notable enough for inclusion, correct? Geeky Randy (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, reviews by major media outlets written by their staff would be reasonable refs. No offense, but for a self-pub book in print for a couple years now, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for mainstream reviews. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if author C. W. Schultz would get off his butt and publish another book, perhaps [i]Yeval[/i] will get some attention. That's kind of what I'm keeping my eyes out for. Geeky Randy (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

The pictures of Muhammad

The pictures of Muhammad is like a war on sunni Muslims, and they have to be removed now. A Denmark newspaper published materials similar to those before, and waves of province and the opposition starts in all the Islamic world against Denmark. Please do not start something like that again. We have to remove them now. --Mazidan (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) No we do not. Please read: Wikipedia is not censored and the FAQ on Muhammad. Jarkeld (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I hope to live up to your prediction. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

SPA for your attention...

Hey, fuzzball, I think we've got an SPA here who's just here to promote a nonnotable internet radio show by posting external links to it in articles for anyone they've ever interviewed. Check out AdamFromWelland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (Came to my attention when he first added the links to Chris Kanyon, then *re*added them without a word after I removed them.) rdfox 76 (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off I'm not sure if this is how you add a question, but I need to clear this up. The external links that I've added on all these pro-wrestler pages contain interviews and segments from the actual individual which includes pertinent information so why it got deleted I don't understand. Gerweck Wrestling has links all over other pro wrestling pages and they're much less notable in terms of traffic then Tha O Show. I am adding these links like I said because the interviews are from the said individuals so how is it not relevant information?

I would like to at the very least recover one external link per page that I've added because they do contain pertinent information. I can understand that the pages with 5 links would be deleted but I would like at least one link recovered for each page that I contributed too in the last 2 weeks.

AdamFromWelland, —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamFromWelland (talk • contribs) 15:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

User talk:Kquinn2 − Unblock Troll

Resolved

Thanks for dealing with that. Am I able to close off the last template to declined, or should I leave that up to you, as the admin? — Fly by Night (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that you've already done it. Good work. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Nomination of Eastside Sun for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Eastside Sun, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastside Sun until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Brianhe (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Pingas listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pingas. Since you had some involvement with the Pingas redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). BwburkeLetsPlays (talk|contribs) 20:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Fox&oldid=401314044"