Dan Fiebiger

Welcome!

Hello, Dan Fiebiger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

I have to say, your article on Linwood Dunn looks fantastic. We need more contributors like you. DS 12:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

However...

Just so you know - you should never sign your name after making an edit to an article. This is because any given article can have dozens, or even hundreds, of individual editors, and if everyone signed, then the article would quickly become an illegible mess of signatures. Information as to who made which edit is automatically tracked, and is available in the article history.

Conversely, you should always sign the messages you leave on article discussion pages or on user talk pages.

No harm done - this is just so you know. DS 13:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

HEY

I just explained to you: don't sign the articles. This also means, don't re-add your signature to the articles after someone else has removed it. Understand? All the info is tracked in the article history. DS 14:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

CAPITAL LETTERS!

HELLO! CAPITALISED ARTICLE TITLES ARE HARD TO READ AND MAKE IT LOOK AS THOUGH YOU ARE SHOUTING! Please look through some related Wikipedia articles for appropriate formatting. Also, please don't sign your contributions - you have been told about this above! Talk pages are ok, as well as project pages. Article changes are recorded in their histories, so you don't have to bother. Don't forget, you don't own the articles that you create, so there's no point in being possessive about it!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

redirect

And another thing! We do not post articles more than once, eg. clay painting. We post once and then use #redirect for alternative titles. -- RHaworth 14:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please leave a note here to indicate that you are looking at these messages. You were told not to sign - you went on signing. You were told not to capitalise - you continued to capitalise. Why? Why? -- RHaworth 14:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you for a week because you seem to be totally ignoring the requests being made here. I will remove the block promptly if you actually manage to explain yourself here. (Leave a note also on my talk page.) If I do not respond, contact any other admin - such as the others who have left messages here (if they are admins). -- RHaworth 16:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Dan Fiebiger here:

I am very new to Wikipedia (and relatively new to owning and using my own computer and the internet, etc.) and am still not fully versed at navigating Wikipedia's many various pages concerning formatting rules, nor was I familiar that there was a page (apparently just for my eyes?) with the messages you had been sending me, which I finally found and read fully for the first time just today. I still don't know how to get onto your talk page to post this reply, for example. And I didn't see a working e-mail address for you for me to contact you directly. And since I didn't leave my e-mail address also, you couldn't get along of me directly, either.

I am still just taking a guess that this is the way I'm supposed to respond to your messages on this page, as I don't see instructions for posting it on this page any other way, or even if I am supposed to post a reply on this page at all.

For the past few days, I have been fully mentally focused on simply writing my contributions, to the exclusion of even considering that there might have been a page communicating messages to me. I figured that it would be weeks, or even months, before anyone owning the Wikipedia site could get around to reading anything I posted and deciding to allow the pages to remain on the site or not, and since I didn't give you my e-mail addres, I figured there'd be no personnal communication at all.

Only now do I know better.

I now understand about the use of credits. This is a key concern for me, as I have worked on many low or no-paying film, music, and animation projects, over the past four decades, only to later receive no in the final credits of most of them, and thus have virtually no portfolio to show to gain forther work in my fields of expertise, and so I am financially impoverished as a result. After six years of trying to get broken-down used computers that had been given to me to work, with little successs, while I saved up my meagar earnings over the years, I was finally able to afford a working internet-capable new computer, after owning and using an ancient 1985 model, used only for non-net word processing, for the past 21 years.

I am new to virtually all things regarding computers that almost everyone else is now more skilled at than me.

The caps I was using in my entries were intended as emphasis (as on an accent for one sylable on a word) and were not intended to imply shouting, which I now guess has become the established meaning that people infer from the use of caps, even though I wasn't implying shouting. It's just more of my unfamilarity with all things cioncerning the net. The use of caps were as if I was trying to say, "To Be or not to be", to slightly heighten the drama (or excitement) of the phrase with an accent on the word "not". I was not trying to scream or shout the phrase to imply shouting the phase in anger.

As of now, I know of the "no credits" and "no caps" rules, but I didn't know of them for the past few days that I have been editing and creating entries, as I didn't know that I was supposed to check some kind of message page sent to me on a daily basis.

The multiple posting of clay painting happened because, as I completed each new page for other animation techniques, I would check the stop motion page to see if that entry had changed from red to blue, implying that the new page had been technically accepted into the system, which happened almost immediately after most of the new pages I had created for other terms had been posted. But the clay painting term stayed red, implying that I had made some kind of technical mistake and that the page was lost, and that I had to write it again from scratch and post it again to get it into the Wikipedia system and change that term's color from red to blue. And so I re-wrote it, twice, until the term on the stop motion page finally changed from red to blue after the third try. Since you now tell me that my earlier postings for that term did post, I have no idea why the term stayed red and didn't change to blue after those first two attempts, as the other terms did right after my first postings for each of those.

Since I am now banned from writing for Wikipedia, after having given a considerable amount of time and research (which I could have better used for something that was financially lucrative) to write my entries, which produced only your anger (and another writer's cutting and pasting of his earlier draft to instantly eliminate my additions to his page on one topic), I will stop attempting to add any entries, to established or new topics.

If you prefer, you can also drop my name from your member data base and block me from ever re-joining, and even erase all of my edits and new pages if your anger at me persists and I will simply keep my knowledge of the topics and people I know about to myself, even if it means that the rest of the world may never find out about these people or their contributions, or will remain uneducated about the intricacies of the technical topics I had been writing about.

I apologize for my considerable ignorance as to how writing for Wikipedia works, and I now plan to stay away from the site entirely from here-on, and will refrain from mentioning it to anyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Fiebiger (talk • contribs)

• I unblocked you instantly - even before I read the above. Please feel free to continue contributing. -- RHaworth 13:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

unblock

Now to respond. Anger is too strong - "puzzlement" better describes my feelings. Here was a guy making obviously very useful contributions and being given advice - which did not not actually impact on the content of his articles and he was simply ignoring it! I assure you I did agonise over blocking you and I am delighted you have responded.

How to talk to me (or any other user): my "signature" is a link, click on it. Then either click on "E-mail this user" (on the left in the default skin) or, preferably, click on "discussion" (at the top).

Weeks, or even months, before anyone .... No - minutes is nearer the mark. Monitor special:newpages for half an hour and you will see it happening. For example arse tickling appeared; it lasted 11 minutes before someone marked it {{nonsense}} and then it lasted another 18 minutes before it got deleted. ... owning the Wikipedia site ... please read the important principles in ownership of articles - you "own" Wikipedia as much as I do.

There is a stiff learning curve on Wikipedia but once you get through it, you will be delighted at how easy it is to get around and how much information there is. For example, to find what had happened to clay painting, you should have clicked on "my contributions" and it would have told you. You won't see the info. now because I did various moves and merges but you can see the nett result in the edit history. And note that the edit history is where you get your due credit for creating the article.

Another writer's cutting and pasting of his earlier draft to instantly eliminate my additions to his page on one topic. Please be specific - which article are you talking about? I suspect you may be talking about CEL ANIMATION and if you refer to its history you will see that it is not "another writer" but a specific editor, who you can contact and moan at! In this case the answer is simple: cel animation already exists and is a redirect to traditional animation. Wikipedia strongly disapproves of multiple articles on the same subject - we call them "forks". If cel animation is a redirect, then CEL ANIMATION should also be a redirect. But nothing is lost, your version is available via the edit history. Please take anything useful from there and add it to the traditional animation article. (Your other stuff seems OK - genuinely new and useful articles.)

So, my very sincere apologies if we have given you a baptism of fire into Wikipedia. Please, stay and contribute - but please respond if "you have messages" pops up! -- RHaworth 14:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh

Oh my.

I do hope you choose to return, Mr Fiebiger. As I said - you are welcome to return. DS 17:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

One More

Since I had already written it, and it was sitting in my system ready for copying and pasting, I wrote one more article (a new page), on Time-lapse photography pioneer Dr. John Ott.

There you go.

Bye.

Dan

And that's a wonderful article (albeit I moved it to the name John Ott, to fit with our article-naming conventions). Please, sir, we'd like some more. DS 15:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

---

The guy who cut and pasted his earlier draft over mine was named "Coyote" Coyoty (David Wright) and it was on the Mike Jittlov page, just in case you're still wondering. (I meant to tell you that a couple messages ago and forgot.) He did the cut and paste to get rid of "gushing" that he didn't like, even though Jittlov certainly deserves the praise, especially for all he's been thru to make the film (and since then, a whole other long, sad story he probably wouldn't want posted). I then edited out the "gushing" myself but left my other new data on Jittlov in. Coyote's edited it further, but the new data I included still appears to be okay.

I have no problem with your edits. (It's your web site.) Nor have I a problem with other people's edits, if they're actually adding useful (additional technical or historical) data. I just don't like someone cutting and pasting an earlier draft to obliterate my entire contribution. (And Coyote seems pretty pre-occupied with being the latest one to have contributed, at least on the Jittlov page, if not others, even if it means doing a minor, or even virtually no edit, but just enough to stay on top.)

Okay, I've pretty much run out of steam. Just wanted to get these last couple of thoughts and data out.

Question: Can anyone access and see this particular (or anyone's personal) message page?

Bye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan Fiebiger (talk • contribs) .

That's one of the key aspects of the project, Mr Fiebiger, sir: openness. All pages can be accessed and read by anyone at any time (with some very specific exceptions: namely, deleted pages can be accessed only by administrators). As for the Jittlov dispute - I'll take a look. DS 13:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Privacy

Oh, and if you want to contact someone privately, you can use the "e-mail this user" link that's on every contributor's page. It only works if both users have supplied a valid address, though, and it does result in the recipient learning your address (and, should they choose to respond, in your learning theirs). DS 13:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Gushing

Excellent, we have not scared you off. Now we can be really rude to you!

Re: privacy. Now why should want to be able to send e-mails anonymously except that you wanted to attack or annoy the recipient? An e-mail address can be anonymous enough anyway. And you always have at least two addresses - one that you give out freely and is therefore likely to attract spam and one that you only give to trustworthy people.

Re: Mike Jittlov, a few points:

• most importantly, you did the edits anonymously and used three different IP addresses. Coyoty might have been willing to discuss the edits with you but there was no user_talk page for him to do it at. You want credit for your contribs. - you won't get it unless you log in before editing.
• "ultra-multi-talented" was not only a peacock term, it was slang.
• You removed the wikilinks from: stop-motion animation, pixilation, Los Angeles, UFO and probably other terms - that looked like vandalism.

But I'm sure you will learn - carry on editing. -- RHaworth 02:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Tom Shaw (independent filmmaker - Portland, Oregon), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Giggy _U^CP 06:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dan Fiebiger replies:

I have no idea other than the information I already gave on Portland, Oregon independent filmmaker Tom Shaw to make him appear to be "notable" enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (Except to say that one of his films, COURIER OF DEATH has become a cult favorite in Scotland.)

Regardless of that, it's pretty frustrating to go to all the trouble to do the research and type in an entry (and I'm disabled and thus, a slow typist), only to have someone delete it for apparently a totally subjective reason as the person in the entry NOT being well known enough, which defeats the purpose of including infomation on less-than-world-famous-persons into a world-wide internet encyclopedia entirely. At what point does someone become notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? At what point does someone controlling Wikipdeia consider that maybe, just maybe, not everyone wants to know about an entry for someone who is already well known?

Also, in reference to my entry about John Ott, I note that it's been tragged as potentially deletable because it was copy-pasted into Wikipedia. I have already stated earlier in my Wikipedia talk page that I copy pasted the article from my own computer where I originally wrote it. To elaborate and clarify, since I had researched (over a long period of time), I wrote the article on my own system before I entered it into Wikipedia so that I could spend all the time I needed off-line before sending it to Wikipedia. I did all the original writing of the article, and it was not copied from any other source. So why is it still tagged as potentially deletable because it might be unoriginal? Is anyone even reading my comments on my talk page, or do I need to copy-paste my comments onto everyone else's talk pages, which I prefer to not do.

I admit that I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia, but if so much of what I contribute will be deleted or otherwise summarilly dismissed, why should I, or anyone, even bother to contribute any entries to Wikipedia at all?

Will even this attempt at communication even or ever accomplish anything?

Dan Fiebiger <e-mail address redacted>

Talkback

Hello, Dan Fiebiger. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.
Message added 17:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.