User talk:SSilverberg

Welcome!

Hello SSilverberg, and welcome to Wikipedia! I saw your request at WP:EAR.

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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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! Dolphin51 (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have read and studied the guidelines, adn followed them as best I can. Please advise if further changes are necessary.

I have updated the Jen Delyth page following the Wikipedia guidelines. Adding external sources, and substantiation for statements, references, and even ISBN numbers for Jen's illustrations. I have noticed that another Wikipedian has already contributed and added an edit to the page. (independant source) This page is pretty solid with facts only presented, in clear and unbiased fashion.

At what point can the page be reviewed for permenant inclusion? thanks.. Scott silverberg

Sock

OK, sockpuppet tag removed.

Dolphin51, I do not see why the presence of the tag was preventing Scott creating a user page. What was to stop him removing the tag and replacing it with a simple statement: " I started editing as Jdelyth but ..."? It would have then been up to anyone else to demonstrate abuse of multiple accounts.

Scott, could you explain the edit summary on the deletion request for Jdelyth: "I am no longer going to use Wikipedia. thanks. Jen". It seems strange since you seem to want to continue editing. User accounts cannot normally be deleted - just stop using Jdelyth! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It comes as no surprise to find that you are Jan Delyth's husband. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the welcome Dolphin 51. And for understanding and removing this sock tag. I am studying your links, as I have been trying to learn the Wikipedia guidelines most of today. I understand a lot more clearly now how Wikipedia operates, and appreciate respect and advise in continuing this process.

To respond to RHaworth... Again, RHaworth your tone is insinuating and insulting. I dont' understand why a new user would be treated like this?? Yes, I am Jen Delyth's friend. I am not currently her husband actually, and we do not live together, but that is totally irrelevant, and saying "it comes as no surprise to find you are her husband" implies once more, that I am not sincere, or do not have a genuine contribution to make. (The official web site is not updated with our personal status, but that is irrelevant. You did not need to search the site for this informnation. You only had to ask. The email address makes it clear doesn't it???Although I hope you also got to see in the process the high quality body of work of the artist you do not think worthy of your consideration!).

The deletion request on the JDelyth page is simply that I read somewhere on your pages, that you can't delete a user (and there is only 1 user, myself, and I should not have created that one in that way - it was a mistake) and if I understood correctly, you can only delete a page. I had no idea you could do the edit you describe above. The page (Jen Delyth) is humiliating with the big tags on it, and since I had no idea I was being inappropriate when I created it, I thought it should go so we can start from scratch. I thought that this was only possible with signing in one last time under the JDelyth user (which is what I created thinking that was necessary for a Jen Delyth page yesterday). I know it must seem ignorant if you use Wikipedia all the time, but for me, it was very confusing yesterday.

This entire situation has been embarressing, and that is not what I expected from Wikipedia. I understand since innocently making the page last night, that protocal was not done correctly. Although I would think is not difficult (if I understand correctly) for anyone to get anyone unrelated to someone to post a page on anyone's behalf. Adn I'm sure it is done all the time. My very transparancy surely makes it clear of my good intention. I just happen to be in the position of respecting and understanding of this subject - Jen Delyth, and her "Celtic Tree of LIfe".

It is a sad reflection -the cynical view that someone is only interested in "promoting" rather than contributing exists - but I understand, and have modified the Jen Delyth page after many hours of work, to make the language more appropriate. I am not doing this for her personal gain, but to make a solid worthwhile deserved contribution. And for the well earned recognition of her "celtic tree of life" symbol to both the Celtic community, and the wider community, where it is taking root (no pun intended!) as a widespread recognisable icon symbol. (please read my comments on your Tree of LIfe talk page.. Our google shows 500,000 plus mentions of Celtic Tree of Life. Jen Delyth was one of the founders of this symbol concept back in 1989 (at the begining of graphic content on the internet) , and the creator of this most popular "version", that is thought to be a symbol of antiquity (although it is not). Further, is not only my opinion that Jen Delyth is a notable artist in her field. I would appreciate your help in showing how to verify this, although I did my best today in the cirumstances to provide external sources and references.

I welcome advise, and help, and ask that insults be kept to a minimum (as I read on Wikipeida guide lines they should be).

Thank you, Scott Silverberg SSilverberg (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please give credit where it is due: it was I who removed the sockpuppet tag. "The email address makes it clear doesn't it" - what email address where? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin 51 reccomended the sock puppet tag was removed. He was polite, helpful, and understanding. Not wearing kid gloves, just following the Wikepedia Wikettiquette.. Which you do not seem to think applies to you.

and my email address.. which shows my relationship quite clearly to Jen, is scott@kelticdesigns.com (although you seem to think you can "call me out" on being her (ex-) husband... And caused me some pain by doing so actually...

If I was trying to be a sneaky spammer (as you have accused me of).. I would simply open up a hotmail account, call myself Shirley, and then I suppose all would be ok in your world. But as it is, I show I am a new user, I beg forgiveness, I ask for help, and show myself quite in the open, and you do nothing but insult and embarress me.

I have made a grievance on the "sock" talk .. S. Silverberg SSilverberg (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Delyth

Hi again Scott! Thanks for your message on my User talk page. I have begun perusing Jen Delyth and will develop some suggestions to achieve the objective you mentioned. I will post my comments on my User talk page, immediately below your questions. To see when my answers have been posted I suggest you put my User talk page on your Watchlist. To do that, log in and go to my User talk page. In the top right corner you will see a tab labelled "Watch". Select that tab (and it will immediately change to "Unwatch".) From then on, whenever you are logged in you can select "My watchlist" at the top of your screen and it will display any recent edits made to my User talk page, plus any recent edits to any of the other articles on your Watchlist. (I have about 160 articles on my Watchlist. Makes life interesting! To delete an article from your Watchlist, go to that article and select the "Unwatch" tab.)

My initial comments. At WP:VERIFIABILITY you can find the statement The threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This is important because it shows that just because an editor knows something is true is not sufficient for that editor to write it in Wikipedia. The editor must be writing what someone else has already written elsewhere. Where such a statement has been challenged, or is likely to be challenged, the editor should provide an in-line citation to verify the statement by showing where the statement has been written. For this reason, it can be a disadvantage to be too knowledgeable about a subject on which we are writing - when we know "too much" we tend to write what we know to be true without ensuring we are writing what someone else has written somewhere. I have fallen into this trap, and I'm sure all other editors have too. At first glance, some of your inline citations appear to be arguing the case in support of something that has been written rather than quoting a source document that verifies the statement. I will provide some detailed information in the next day or so. Regards Dolphin51 (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for constructive comments. I have added the watch of your talk, and will continue discussion (after this ) from now on on your page.

I will study "citation" tonight.. I have added references which I thought verified most of the statements from third party sources, but now I will try and make them "in-line citations" instead. I just don't know that there is enough time for me to collect the data /quotes, since it seems there is only 3 days left before the page will be deleted. Its very hard, and I'm quite frustrated that I started this complex project with so little knowledge. I'm still up for the challenge though, and appreciate all and any comments and help you can give me. I understand that you are busy, and have many other articles. Thanks for help and support, Scott SSilverberg (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott. I have your message regarding the Conflict of Interest tag. It is not a major problem, but I will respond to it shortly, either on the Talk:Jen Delyth page, or my User talk page. A couple of days ago you asked me some questions on my User talk page, under the sub-heading Need help please. I have now responded, immediately below your questions. You may not have noticed it yet. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dolphin, I didn't see those comments. Very helpful.. I'll get on with responding to them, although its worrying that all the work may be for nothing.. But keeping my fingers crossed, and either way have learned much of interest, and all will not be lost whatever the outcome. Thanks for your time, much appreciation across the world - ScottSSilverberg (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, on the subject of coping with the conflict of interest situation, there is some excellent advice at WP:SCOIC. Background information is available at WP:COI. Somewhere you commented that I was an Administrator. Thanks for the compliment but, in fact, I am just one of Wikipedia's worker bees! Dolphin51 (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott. I have been through Jen Delyth and made a number of deletions in order to eliminate the criticisms that it lacks evidence of notability and a neutral point of view. To do so, I have emphasised the information that links Jen to the Celtic Tree of Life. I have also eliminated information that looked like it had been written by someone wishing to promote Delyth. The end result is that the article now looks entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia. I have removed the two banners that were previously at the head of the page.

You are at liberty to add to Jen Delyth, and to restore any of the information I deleted. I would only caution that it is important any information you add should look like it has been written by someone who is scrupulously objective, is only interested in recording the facts, and is not interested in promoting or demoting the subject outside the boundaries of what other people have written in identifiable sources.

I now think it is unlikely that Jen Delyth will ever be proposed for deletion. Incidentally, I notice that Amy Brown was proposed for deletion 11 months ago. You can see the deletion debate at WP:Articles for deletion/Amy Brown. Since the conclusion of that debate nothing much appears to have been done to improve the article and it remains a poor example.

You are now a very accomplished Wiki editor. I hope you put your skills to good use and do a lot of beneficial editing of the articles you read. Best regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dolphin, Many thanks for helping steer this page into a positive contribution for Wikipedia. I've learned a lot, and am looking forward to continuing now I know more how it all works. YOu've been a patient teacher, and given me a positive view of this community. much appreciation, ScottSSilverberg (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have taken a look at the page per your request. The article still needs alot of work. I did a small cleanup of article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style, You may want to read that guideline. The article still has problems:

-The summery makes claims that the "Celtic Tree of Life design[2] (has) become an iconographic symbol". This is not backed up by a reliable sources.

-There still is no valid claim or reference as to whether this person is notable. re: The Celtic Tree of Life - any artist can make a drawing and copyright it, this does not mean it is notable. The only other activity seems to be illustration and exhibit in commercial art exhibits.This seems to fall short of Wikipedia:Notability (people) which looks for notable "permanent collections of several notable galleries (not commercial) or museums", or "person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

- For a supposed biography the article has very little biographical information.

You may want to expand the article based on my minor edits and try to make it less of a resume and more of a biography citing reliable sources. If this person is a media celeberty than you may want to cite that.

hope this helps Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help... I"ve responded on Talk page .. I would also like to mention, the first versions of this article did focus on biographical info, which was suggested to be removed, and make the Tree of LIfe the significant contribution the main focus. (see talk by Dolphin and past article reworks) Its been a lot of work, and very frustrating.

My main point regarding the Wikipedia notable GUIDE lines " "permanent collections of several notable galleries (not commercial) or museums", or "person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." is that with independant grass roots artists, these guidelines may ignore the notability of an artist in their genre, if it is is popularly based - which the internet shows with the google references. Folk Art and grass roots independant artists and musicians are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. And many are included. I dont know why this article is being given scrutiny. It was supposed to be a simple matter of adding Jen Delyth to the Faerieworlds Wikipedia page, along with the other featured artists who are represented at this large scale bi-annual event. The other artists have far less information on their pages.

I also think showing icon status through widespread use - ironically - as ICONS on the internet - verifiable through google searches, is completly valid.

Also, it is maybe impossible to show in a citation, or in this article, but within the genre, Jen Delyth's image of the "Celtic Tree of life" in 1989 was one of the very first published Celtic Tree symbols. There are NO Celtic Tree images per se appearing in antiquity, or in popular imagery in existance, before her image was created.. and copyright with LIbrary of Congress. Her image spawned the popularity of the "Celtic Tree of Life" as alternative religion icon. I have not mentinoed this in the article, as its difficult to prove. But Jen Delyth is known by many in her field to have contributed this icon to the genre. I am going to contact other Celtic artists to see if they can verify this information, but even so, it would have to be put onto the internet or how could it be shown to be a quote? This is getting pretty ridiculous however. The internet shows clearly (search celtic art) and her body of work speaks for itself. Jen Delyth is the premier Celtic artist working in this country today. She deserves to be included on Wikipedia, and more attention given to this popular genre of folk art, that represents a wide portion of the immigrant culture. This is not a gallery artform, and reviews have mostly pertained to her book - which are available as a citation, but only Jen has written - as expert - on teh subject of the Celtic Tree of Life, and she cannot be quoted in the article. So its a closed loop. However, there are some citations, and the google references. I think its really enough, and adds interest to the article, which is really showing that there is such a thing as the Celtic Art Genre, and that artist Jen Delyth has made a signifiant contribution to that genre, and is one of the best known in the world working today. And that has been verified by outside independant journalistic sources. thanks. Scott SSilverberg (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Jen Delyth has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Jen Delyth constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove this page. THe constant criticisms and notes are humilating to the artist, who has expressed concern to me about it. Jen Delyth is a renowned artist in her field. This article was extremly time consuming to create, and I responded to all criticisms, and was re written several times. Each rewrite gets new criticism.. without understanding of the process being forced upon it. This system is flawed. Jen Delyth should be on wikipedia. Her Celtic Tree of life IS ICONOGRAPHIC, and needs to be noted and associated with her. Jen Delyth is a folk artist. She is extremly popular and respected in her field, and appreciated on a grass roots level, and also is widely published. There are many many artists and musicians in Wikipedia who have less right to be featured, with no problem. This has been enormously frustrating, and I give up. So please remove the page and all its contents as I am doing now. I mostly wrote, it, I think I should be able to remove it. thanks. S SilverbergSSilverberg (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott! I see you have made a couple of attempts to remove the entire contents from Jen Delyth but on each occasion some other user has identified the deletion of 16,000 units of text as vandalism and correctly reverted your edit, restoring the article to its former status. The correct way to have an article deleted in its entirety is to list it for deletion. You can see an example of articles currently listed for deletion, and the way the deletion debates are conducted, by going to WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 17.

The procedure by which any Wikipedia user can list an article for deletion is explained at WP:AfD#How to list pages for deletion.

I am sorry that Jen feels the best course of action is to delete the article dedicated to her. I see that numerous users have criticised it and called for amendments, so it has been a frustrating experience for you. You have a number of options — you could simply ignore the requests for further information and re-work, and leave it to other editors to work on the article. Alternatively, you could delete the offending parts of the article. Other users won't see partial deletions as vandalism. Or thirdly, you could list the article for deletion.

My best regards to you and Jen. Dolphin51 (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]