![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Hi. Thanks for trying to add to Wikipedia (WP) (e.g. here and here). Unfortunately, what you are adding does not belong in an encyclopedia:
There are many areas where you can constructively contribute to WP. Why not give it a go?
may not be the primary cause of this effect. I found the following quote at http://everything2.com/title/Thaumatrope . " For nearly 150 years, persistence of vision was held responsible for optical illusions as simple as the one produced by the thaumatrope, and later, as complex as motion pictures. This influential theory was proven false in the 1970s; the thaumatrope actually relies on the brain's inability to correctly process the images, rather than the eye's inability to correctly perceive the images as distinct. However, the inventor of the thaumatrope certainly believed that his device exploited persistence of vision, and so this information is included as a matter of historical context."
I hope that this helps, this is my first Wikipedia activity. Best, Douglas.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.107.120 ( talk) 19:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I was referred to this page by somebody who'd found it and was very put off by a rapidly flashing and unsignposted gif due to it being a potential epilepsy trigger. While this is a small risk, it seems needless. I can't imagine this is the first time this has happened on Wikipedia however, so I would appreciate it if anybody knows if there is a standard format for this sort of warning. I've removed the gif for the time being but will revert it shortly if I find a standard warning formatting myself. 114.76.84.151 ( talk) 07:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The following "This is partly due to many film historians' belief that the associated theory of persistence of vision explains the physiological basis for movies, although this was disproved in 1912.". I'd rather statements like this were at least sourced and not sounding as though they originate from a person randomly happening to hear or read such a 'factoid' and then toddling over to Wikipedia to edit it. I don't out right disbelieve anything it says, but it inserts itself quite bluntly. Quite a lot of the time, it seems this type of process is how Wikipedia is formed really. Good luck! 82.32.144.215 ( talk) 17:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Hi. Thanks for trying to add to Wikipedia (WP) (e.g. here and here). Unfortunately, what you are adding does not belong in an encyclopedia:
There are many areas where you can constructively contribute to WP. Why not give it a go?
may not be the primary cause of this effect. I found the following quote at http://everything2.com/title/Thaumatrope . " For nearly 150 years, persistence of vision was held responsible for optical illusions as simple as the one produced by the thaumatrope, and later, as complex as motion pictures. This influential theory was proven false in the 1970s; the thaumatrope actually relies on the brain's inability to correctly process the images, rather than the eye's inability to correctly perceive the images as distinct. However, the inventor of the thaumatrope certainly believed that his device exploited persistence of vision, and so this information is included as a matter of historical context."
I hope that this helps, this is my first Wikipedia activity. Best, Douglas.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.107.120 ( talk) 19:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I was referred to this page by somebody who'd found it and was very put off by a rapidly flashing and unsignposted gif due to it being a potential epilepsy trigger. While this is a small risk, it seems needless. I can't imagine this is the first time this has happened on Wikipedia however, so I would appreciate it if anybody knows if there is a standard format for this sort of warning. I've removed the gif for the time being but will revert it shortly if I find a standard warning formatting myself. 114.76.84.151 ( talk) 07:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The following "This is partly due to many film historians' belief that the associated theory of persistence of vision explains the physiological basis for movies, although this was disproved in 1912.". I'd rather statements like this were at least sourced and not sounding as though they originate from a person randomly happening to hear or read such a 'factoid' and then toddling over to Wikipedia to edit it. I don't out right disbelieve anything it says, but it inserts itself quite bluntly. Quite a lot of the time, it seems this type of process is how Wikipedia is formed really. Good luck! 82.32.144.215 ( talk) 17:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)