User talk:Pillhall

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Hoary (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i agree. this page was place in error User: talkpillhall

Proposed deletion of David Wood (Photographic Chemist)[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article David Wood (Photographic Chemist), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Hoary (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I agree. The photographic chemist page was placed in error. User: talkpillhall

From Talk:David Wood (Photographic Chemist)[edit]

Please explain the opposition to this article. I have input outside articles of this important photographic process. A direct article to dr5 has proven to be deleted in the past. Advise on this friction.user talk:pillhall

I don't see any trace of a deleted article on "dr5". Exactly what was its title? -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

about 2 years ago i saw an article about "dr5". it was promptly deleted, considered to be spam. since that time I have watched several notable magazine articles. I believe this process and it's inverter should be noted. those of us in the traditional photo industry already know these facts. how else should the article i wrote be noted? User: talkpillhall

Ah, I understand: there was indeed an article on Dr5. (The problem was that Dr5 now redirects to DR5, which redirects elsewhere.) The deletion was discussed here.

IFF you're sure that you can create an article on Dr5 that is not advertising and whose assertions are based on publicly available, independent, reliable sources, then click here and create the article. -- Hoary (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise on how this could be done. Is not the public written articles an Dependant source? This is a huge deal to photographic processing. There is no example of this kind of processing on the planet. I could also site many many examples of wasted WIKI space siting someones accomplishments. In this case, dr5 is a major photographic accomplishment, let alone the service provided. regards, advise. User: talkpillhall

David Wood[edit]

[the above moved from my talk page]

You're certainly right: Wikipedia contains a great deal of advertising. Feel free to agitate to have it removed, but be specific: not just "Wikipedia is full of advertising", but "[title of article] is advertising".

Dr5 may or may not be a huge deal to photographic processing. E-6 certainly is. But you'll see that E-6 is described matter-of-factly. If you can describe dr5 matter-of-factly from reliable sources, go ahead.

You can sign your comments simply by hitting the "~" (tilde) key four times in a row. -- Hoary (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the advise, I am new at this. i would have you look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_film. the discussion is clearly in favor of mentioning dr5 as a viable entity. just because E6 is established doesn't make it any more viable than dr5. I personally have run film in this process. one can not simply dismiss a great thing simply because it doesn't have corporate backing. in this age of digital real photographic breakthroughs are dismissed, this one should not be dismissed. i could point out MANY less deserving articles, not just the advertising ones. dr5 the process has its own formula, its own machine(i have seen it), just like E6, kodachrome, E4 & E3 and C41. is this action still being taken? where do i go to protest it? Pillhall (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of protesting anything. I have moved the article to dr5 and edited it accordingly; please feel free to expand the image, but only from materials that are publicly available (e.g. those already in the "External links" section), not from your personal knowledge. -- Hoary (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Dr5, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Citing a source to call someone the "inventor" when the source uses no such terminology is not appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you think you accomplished in your latest edit. The source still doesn't support the statment that it's cited for, and the sense of the other one was just mangled. Dicklyon (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? did you read the discussion page on the article? did you even reread my reedit?? I took out the 'creator' statement just to make you happy, even though the new inclusion clearly states wood is the inventor of the process. it also say this if youd bother to listed to the program. i don't understand your opposition to this article. I am going to revert this once again with changes along with wiki disputes. This program about dr5 should be included in this article. Pillhall (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted me without comment. I recommend you take your complaint to the article talk page, but be aware that editors with a single purpose and apparent WP:COI need to be make an excellent case for their changes. I'm trying to take the article to a more neutral and sourced state, but you seem to want to write it more as a David Wood autobiography. I'm not clear on why you asked "did you read the discussion page on the article?" Is there something there that I haven't already responded to? Dicklyon (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr5 Chrome[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dr5 Chrome, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Dr5. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you recently removed some content from List of Scientologists without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Amaury. I noticed that you recently removed all content from David Wood (Photographic Chemist) with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

actually that page was input by accident and should be deleted. User: talkpillhall