Talk:Ton Roosendaal

Copyright Infringement

Okay whoever said to me that adding Ton Roosendall's identity here was an act of copyright infringement, let me notify you, my Name is Kiernan Holland. Ton knows me.. And Ton should know that I maintained a third of his user support int he early stages of the development of blender. I purchased the RISC computer that blender was ported to, that permitted the porting of blender to a 64-bit platform.. I was also the one that bought the site www.blender3d.com, and later passed ownership to Ton when blender was released in open source. I guess I can regret the free of charge transfer of that address..

So if you want to slap me on the wrists for copyright infringement, go ahead.. It's bogus to assume that wikipedia is anything more than a world contributed site for common information than a encyclopedia with real integrity. I bet I could implement a wikipedia in a few months.. Let me see, a form, submit button, custom bb code, a javascript based word processor, a lookup table for link indirection, am I getting close? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rofthorax (talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Emotion

The article seems to be too emotional. This article should be a description of the person and his history, not a soap opera. -- Aronzak (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to reword some parts that sound "soapy" :) --203.88.89.178 (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone, proposal to consider deletion, merge, or complete rewrite

The inappropriate tone header is very much so justified. Here's a few examples...

• "Blender development has continued to the present day, driven by a team of dedicated volunteers from around the world, coordinated by Ton Roosendaal."

• "In the first two and a half years of open source development, it was especially this unique attribute of the Blender project that has proved to be difficult to organize and maintain. Instead of funding the project directly by bringing together software developers, the Blender Foundation decided to start a project to bring together the most outstanding artists in the Blender community and challenge them to make a 3D animation movie short, as this would in turn both prove that Blender can be used to make a professional quality animation, and help the development of the project.

• "To everyone's shock and surprise the campaign reached the 100,000 EUR goal in only seven weeks. [...] Blender development has continued to the present day, driven by a team of dedicated volunteers from around the world, coordinated by Ton Roosendaal."

• "Because of the overwhelming success of the first open movie project..."

These are astonishingly impartial edits that have collected dust untouched for the last three years. It seems that most, if not all, of these very personal sounding edits are from the user Margreetriphagen, who has promptly disappeared in 2009 the very month he or she showed up and began editing this sole article, and it alone.

On top of that, we have an off-topic melodramatic bashing of Wikipedia from what sounds to be a fanatical Blender supporter in this very talk page. Yes, I do understand that many of these people are new to Wikipedia, and I'm willing to meet these people halfway. But when the entire article ends up having little to do with the subject in a biographical sense and more to do with Blender's history sprinkled with weasel words, I begin to doubt the integrity of the page as a whole.

Because of this, I have added the peacock and multiple issues templates, along with proposal to merge Ton_Roosendaal with Blender_(software)#History. If people feel this is unnecessary, then I would like to hear what justifies the article as is, or if we should heavily rewrite (or potentially delete) this page.

---Miranda (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any basis for deleting it. It's definitely relevant and the facts are all there. It's just about phrasing it in a way that is more neutral and less euphoric than status quo. With his honorary doctorate and the open movie projects (being relevant beyond Blender), I don't think it's good to merge with Blender#history. Not that it wouldn't work, but I think this can very well work as a standalone article, and would work better as one. Maybe there is a native speaker (unlike me) who finds time to rephrase this.

Also, I don't really see the basis for the "Primary sources"-Template any more. Most of the references point to sites way outside the Blender community. The bigger problem is that most of them are 404s by now. --Julian H. (talk/files) 21:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

-This man has single-handedly revolutionized the 3D open source world. Not sure what else to say. Lets improve the page and continue adding all his contributions instead of deleting it.Guywithacoolname (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

-I agree with Guywithacoolname. See, for example: http://creativecommons.org/tag/ton-roosendaal . TheoA (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine and all. But before we even to begin adding more bibliographic information on him, shouldn't we clean up the weasel wording ( eg 'adding all his contributions') ? Do neither of you see the blatant peacock wording in those examples I provided?

I severely doubt a lack of bias and encyclopedic integrity from many users when editing this page. Blender seems to have a cult following, there's no denying that. When people flippantly start using words such as "Single-handedly revolutionized" that end up in the article, there's a distinct lack of understanding how Wikipedia works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MirandaStreeter (talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

They don't end up in the article. This is a discussion - here, it's appropriate (because it's correct). In the article, more appropriate terms are used (mostly). If there are words in there you don't like, it would be great if you could correct them. --Julian H. (talk/files) 18:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Language and content improved

I have one more time rephrased some areas, added new information and several new sources (I also updated the sources with dead links). If any area of the article is still using tone or style that "may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia" or that "merely promotes the subject", please name them here or correct them. If not, it should be possible to remove those two templates. --Julian H. (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, after one week and no complaints, I removed the templates. If there are any phrases that are still not appropriate in your eyes, please fix them or name them here. Thank you. --Julian H. (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ton Roosendaal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090721003904/http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/news/index_ton_roosendaal_160709.htm to http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/news/index_ton_roosendaal_160709.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)