As I understand it (I'm a WikiNewbie), I can use this page to explain myself, and you can use it to talk to me. I think the main purpose of posting to a user-page is to discuss the cross-topic behaviour of a WikiEditor, and that's what I'm expecting to deal with here. If you want to discuss edits that I've done on some specific article, please use that article's talk page. All articles that I edit (unless the edit is minor) are added to my watchlist.
I prefer email; you can email me here []; but I do watch my watchlist.
I'm a (rotten) Buddhist, and a professional software developer. I live in Oxford, in the UK; I was born in this town, but I've lived in quite a few other places in the intervening years. Politically I lean towards autonomist anarchism and environmentalism; but my attitudes in both areas are pretty-much moderate - sort-of wishy-washy pinky-green with a delicate hint of deepest black. I was taught Western Philosophy at university.
I've tangled recently with both psychotherapists and lawyers; I messed with psychoactive chemicals in my youth; I lurve the Grateful Dead and several other old hippie bands; I've lived as an adult in the UK and the USA, an as a child in Malaya and France; and I'm a vegetarian (I can cook - we veggies have to learn to cook, otherwise we don't get fed a proper diet).
I think that more or less covers everything I know anything about!
Comments on Mipham Gyatso talk page=
I _think_ Sylvain's last reply to your comments got in between your comment and signature, so I moved it back, based on edit history. If this is _not_ the case then I do apologize, but it was a little confusing otherwise. Regards, Zero sharp 16:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to American Pie (song), but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The article already states that McLean's original was over 8 minutes long. Are you seriously asking me for citations to substantiate that this is unusually long single (even now, but particularly in the sixties)? Or is it the specific assertion that singles in the sixties were not usually much longer than 3 minutes? Or am I advancing a position? What position would that be?
I said in the article's talk page that I thought the article needed more content about McLean's original song, to balance the excessive amount of material on Madonna's (heavily bowdlerized) cover. Rather than expecting others to do the work I had proposed, I made a contribution of my own concerning the original. Since I don't think that anything in my contribution was controversial enough to need cites, I'm not going to waste my time looking for them. It's too bad about the article's gross lack of balance, but evidently someone likes it that way. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you're not willing to provide citations when you're asked for them then you shouldn't expect your material to be considered acceptable as you aren't establishing that it's verifiable. I think you do need references to establish that the running time was atypical. DonIago (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)