Here are some tips to help you get started:
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
- Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you want to post an image but don't know how - check out the Wikipedia:Image tutorial
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or on my user talk page
- You might want to check some open tasks on Wikipedia:Community portal
- Explore, be bold, and, most importantly, have fun!
Good luck! Renata3 18:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- 1 Billy Meier
- 2 Re: Thanks.
- 3 re. Pseudoscience
- 4 Purssian Blue
- 5 Image:Billgatesteen.jpg
- 6 Backronym
- 7 Something you might be interested in
- 8 Hollywood move
- 9 No problem
- 10 White nationalism in South Africa
- 11 IC
- 12 Removing Comments
- 13 editing of insults to living people
- 14 Use of edit summaries
- 15 evidence
- 16 Are you joking?
- 17 Stop
- 18 Rediculous
- 19 citation
- 20 Trolling
- 21 Education
- 22 Glib?
- 23 Columbine High school massacre
- 24 Living people category
- 25 MLK
- 26 Request for mediation
- 27 Request for Mediation
- 28 Archimedes Plutonium
- 29 AfD nomination of Prussian Blue (duo)
- 30 The First Sex
- 31 not a philosopher
- 32 Talk:Taisha Abelar
- 33 ＲＥ：0.999…
- 34 Archimedes Plutonium
- 35 Religious predictions
- 36 Happy Holidays
- 37 Icke
- 38 Dnepropetrovsk maniacs
- 39 Your comments would be appreciated @
- 40 Proposed rewrite for Appeal to ignorance.
- 41 Your Deletion Today from article on General Semantics
- 42 Gergel
- 43 Notification of user conduct discussion
- 44 Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
- 45 Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
I added Billy Meier to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/Articles attracting pseudoscientific edits/publicwatchlist which might get some editors interested in it. Bubba73 (talk), 15:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- What I did may help. I don't have the main book about it (by Korff), but I do have other books in which it is mentioned. BTW, you might be interested in two projects:
The Billy Meter article is really bloated. I am new to Wikipedia but I am going to try to edit it down. I would appreciate any input since you have worked over there. Thanks.126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem, over the last number of years of really looking into the Meier case thus far, I've also come across extremes from both sides. Even when at times I've supported the case for my own personal reasons, rather then because of what various people have said about it, and the same is also also true with the skeptics. As much of an anti-skeptic as I've become with a certain select group of people because of their destructive criticism, the same opposite is also true of people I've found with good healthy constructive skepticism, which is a good thing because these people usually don't buy into all the other non-sense from various religions and new age cults alike. And of course they tend to be reasonable people, even if they don't believe in UFOs because they've never seen one in their life. As a further note: I think you'll find the Meier case unique in the sense that it's most certainly the most debated UFO case in history that I know of, because I always found it odd that so many skeptics will debate the Billy Meier case a lot, yet give little or no attention to debating other UFO cases like say; George Adamski's Adamski foundation, George King's Aetherius Society, Claude Vorilhon's Raëlian Movement, Ernest and Ruth Norman's Unarius Academy, or even someone like Helena Petrovna Blavatsky's "Theosophical Society", who has achieved quite a significant number of followers of new agers today like perhaps no other.
Perhaps the best book written about the Meier case controversy is "Light Years" by Gary Kindler". I think you'll enjoy this book if you've not read it yet all ready, which is the only one of it's kind with more a neutral perspective. If you haven't read it then enjoy the read.--J-Truthseeker 06:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Anything genuinely controversial I have placed on the talk page for reconsideration. All the relevant debate in philosophy of science today is around the edges, and also about whether there is one Method, or a bunch of them. Nonetheless there is wide agreement on a set of core principles. There are yet more explanatory and concise ways of putting all this; sorry you caught me in the middle of multiple edits which I had hoped to complete and justify before someone noticed them in transition. Thanks...Kenosis 18:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
That's Hebrew ont l33t, read a book sometime. Love user:Thenegri
Intellectual property rights for Billgatesteen.jpg are owned by Corbis , it is no longer an image used to publicize Microsoft. Corbis maintains that this image is "Not available for "royalty free" licensing", which pretty much precludes any claim of fair use. It is a fine picture and would make a valuable addition to the article, but I don't think that it's legal for Wikipedia to host it. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 07:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Phiwum, have added the "Backronym" problem to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to draw attention to it and ask for a moratorium for further examples. I think it gives a bad image of Wikipedia if we carry on the way we are doing at the moment. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. Dieter Simon 01:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Something you might be interested in
Since you requested deletion for the One Peice attacks, I thought you could help out here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Hydromasta231 04:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, some folks do seem to be focused on narrow issues. -Will Beback 23:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I like looking for articles to improve. Most all of the information exists out there, just gotta cite it. Got a little ways to go. Thanks for the support! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
White nationalism in South Africa
Since you asked in the edit summary: there are indeed white nationalists of a sort in South Africa, but they would prefer to leave it and withdraw into an area in which whites are the majority, see Orania. 'White secessionist' is probably the best term for them, but it isn't in general use.Paul111 11:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Rtc's edits had quite a number of problems - s/he wasn't just removing "discredited concept". When you revert a POV edit you have the option of either reverting the entire thing, or just reverting part of it. The article has called IC a "controversial concept" for a long time. It was changed on Dec 2 to "discredited concept". Both of these statements are true, although from a scientific perspective IC isn't "controversial" - it's discredited/rejected. Since IC purports to be science, calling it "controversial" is less accurate than calling it "discredited". Rtc's version, which calls it "Michael Behe's position" is true but trivial - it's uninformative and hides more than it reveals. Of the three options, "discredited concept" is the least inaccurate (although, granted, the wording could well be improved).
As for the court ruling - obviously a court ruling does not accept or reject science. The ruling provides a good summary by an outsiders. It's a convenient source that cannot easily be dismissed as partisan (even though, of course, the ID-ists are doing just that). Guettarda 21:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Suggest an improvement to the wording, drop it on the talk page and walk away. That way you don't have to get into arguments, but people will see (and probably discuss) your suggestions (provided that they are specific enough). Guettarda 22:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Can't the top two comments on the Prussian Blue (duo) Talk Page be removed? They are obvious trolling, and I think they should be removed. Can they be removed because they're troll comments, or not? Acalamari 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
editing of insults to living people
Hi, Phiwum. Once I would have said as you did at Talk:Tory Christman, that WP:BLP does not include editing people's posts on talk pages to remove statements of negative opinion such as that someone was "stupid", "crazy" or "bad". I still think that it should be this way, that these are obviously opinions and should be treated as such. However, it turns out that the opposite interpretation has prominent support (see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Does WP:BLP justify the removal of talk page sections where someone expresses a personal opinion? and the "Tom Cruise on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard Am I not getting it?" section of  (for some reason I haven't been able to locate the archived version of this section.)) -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Use of edit summaries
Thank you for spotting and reverting vandalism, but please remember to be civil in your reversion edit summaries (re: 1, 2, 3). I can't tell whether you are taking the vandalism too seriously or merely just playing around; either way, this could be taken as uncivil, and could worsen the vandalism by inciting a challenge (see Wikipedia:Deny recognition). Thanks. -- Renesis (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to understand that when defs of "famous" people are in question, evidence and proff are of the utmost importance. To be "substantiated" there must be proof or evidence. One does not say "who says it is unsubstantiated" as you did. It should be clear, very clear that things said are factual...not assumed. Jokerst44 15:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you joking?
You better believe WP evaluates substaniated claims! Do you know what a source is used for?? Do you know the definition of substantiated?? Put the two together and you get the reguirement. Come on. Are you saying I can say whatever I want in a def, with no accountability? I think not. Jokerst44 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It sure seems as though your goal is not to contribute in your own right, but to simple critisize and take issue with others. Take a look at your own contributions.
This is sad. If you think WP has an issue with "claims", then you have a lot of work ahead of you. Do you know how many time I see that word in defs?? Maybe you should relax a little. It sure seems like you have more of some personal issue with the people writing or editing the defs than you do the defs. Are you on some sort of vendetta here or what? Jokerst44 00:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
My understanding after reading the WP explaination for "when" to cite a source if when it could be in contention, which this was. Perhaps you could revert it back considering I followed WP protocol. Jokerst44 02:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Do me a favor and stay away from me. I get the point, as do many others apparently, that you feel you are somehow better than everyone else and only your opinions are worthy. I see you do nothing more than irritate and annoy others without actually offering anything original of your own. Leave me alone. I won't ask twice. Jokerst44 03:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope I didn't come off as glib or trite after this discussion on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard about my question to Justanother. He really did answer my question, but it occurred to me just now as I read through the discussion that it might have seemed like I was blowing you off. If it did please accept my apologies for both the incident and the delay in responding. I know it probably sounded like a smart ass question, but I couldn't figure out if he had ignored the ref in the first place or if my diagram set this into motion. Anynobody 05:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Columbine High school massacre
Yeah, that phrase completely threw me! It's because it seems like its following a numerical order but in fact it's not because it changes from shootings to killings. I don't think it needs to be ranked in the high school killings either. I understand shootings because it's a shooting but it just seems a bit repetitive to add that second ranking.
Seraphim Whipp 10:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank-you for responding. I was completely befuddled earlier! After you had mentioned the Bath School disaster, I felt inclined to read it; it is a very interesting article. Hopefully people will find it under the "see also" section. If not, go on a linking rampage!
- Seraphim Whipp 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Living people category
Am I just way off base in thinking the two issues cannot be severed? Is my logic faulty?Die4Dixie 23:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kent Hovind, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
I don't know if you are following everything, but I want to assure you that I have read the articles about the historical Jesus, and they are non-mainstream but not particularly radical. AP claims that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that he was a "terrorist" fighting the romans. This more recent stuff I am not so familiar with. It is hard for me to link a specific post, but I will do so as soon as I can. Also, be very aware that AP was not in any way involved with any crime, and that to have anything that suggests otherwise is a terrible libelous act. Please do not give in to the temptation to engage in such immoral behavior, even if you wish to have the article deleted.Likebox 07:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- That may be Arthur's stated beef, but if you look at the revision history with an eye towards what a completely ignorant person would think if he encountered the page, you will see that he was deliberately rewriting the page to insinuate (not even subtly) that AP was never cleared. I didn't know anything about this case, I had to research it, find out that it was solved, and then add that to the main page. If Arthur were in any way honest about this, he would have written that the case is solved himself, and not made insinuations in the talk page and using [original research?] and [dubious ] tags. Think about it. What if I said this on the encyclopedia:
- millions of people read WP. It is not just irresponsible to say this, it is immoral.Likebox 16:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Phiwum, I don't know if there was malice. I am not a mindreader. All I know is that even after repeated urging and begging, and pleading, and repeatedly explaining that the wording was ambiguous and left doubt about the case, and asking to please change it to something unambigously exonerating, changes still got made, and they got made so that the page read ambiguously. This isn't abstract discourse, this is a person't life we're talking aboutLikebox 21:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Phiwum, I wasn't slinging allegations groundlessly. I had to fight with them for three days to get a sentence in there that absolves him of responsibility, and the only reason that you weren't aware of this fight (but they were) is because I did the edits so quickly that the incriminating sentences and tags disappeared quickly. I put a notice on AN/I.Likebox 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- The AN/I discussion begins, and the page disappears, including the 8 incriminating edits! I hope that this stuff is saved somewhere for future reference.Likebox 23:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Phiwum, I only turn to you because you seem to be open minded. I filed an AN/I which got nowhere, and the page is deleted along with all the incriminating evidence. I know Arthur Rubin is a powerful man, but he did wrong here, and a quick check of the logs will make it evident to anybody. I don't want him to resign from Wikipedia, just an apology and an assurance that this will not happen again is enough. It is not appropriate to have such people in charge. I am reconsidering my contributions to Wikipedia. I don't want to contribute to a project which has the potential to create powerful aristocrats and sycophants who use their position to smear others. I would appreciate some reply because I am not an admin and I am not privy to the goings on in the shadowy world of the encyclopedia. But if you still think that I am "beyond the pale", then ignore this.Likebox 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand now that no smearing was involved, and that the only purpose of the attacks was to dissuade me from writing about Archimedes Plutonium, who had been discussed extensively by the editors and purposefully excluded. I wish someone could have told me directly, so that I would not have made such a fool of myself.Likebox 01:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Phiwum, I was incensed by this exprience. Arthur Rubin made 8 consecutive edits that made AP look like a killer, and I reverted them and kowtowed to him and begged him to stop, and nothing helped. He was just yanking my chain! This is idiotic juvenile behavior. As for AP's arithemtic, I am not "taken" by them, they are just obviously equiconsistent by the compactness theorem, and any mathematically competent person would see that immediately. AP saw it immediately, and I saw it immediately as an undergraduate 15 years ago. Please stop asking me to explain why, because if you sit and think about it for more than a few hours you will see it's true. As for wikipedia, I meant what I said. Anything I write in the future will go under my name only in my user space, and that only if I can maintain copyright. I have no complaint with your behavior. It was decent and honest, and that's more than I can say for the dickwads in charge of this place.188.8.131.52 04:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Prussian Blue (duo)
An editor has nominated Prussian Blue (duo), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (duo) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The First Sex
"If you don't know how to format a citation, provide as much information as you can, and others will help to write it correctly." From Wiki guidelines. You might want to reread them. Athana (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Unrelated to the above, but on the same topic: Thanks for your support. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
not a philosopher
- With due respect to Loadmaster, the fact that AP keeps reposting inappropriate text is no reason to leave it be.
- You're welcome. I appreciate that you nominated it, because you pointed out its shortcomings (and I'm afraid that the way the discussion is going, that's not going to change), and I hope that none of my responses came across as criticism of you. I commend you for standing your ground. I don't think the article is beyond saving, but I agree with you that it seems to have no criteria. I have a real problem with the phrase "religious predictions" (and even worse, before that, "religious prophecies"). Does that mean that every time some yo-yo says, in the context of his religion, that he's had a vision or a revelation, it's "religious"? It's akin to describing a bunch of "governmental predictions" every time a government employee makes a comment. I predict that in three days, millions of Americans will eat turkey (and it's a religious prediction, because I said "three days"). Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- There are nuggets, believe it or not, though it's true that you have to read an awful lot of non-nuggets to find them.  SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It is difficult to source some areas of the article, because it was decided early on that no link would point in the direction of the murder video itself. Many people have arrived at Dnepropetrovsk maniacs after looking at 3Guys1Hammer on Encyclopedia Dramatica, which cannot be linked from Wikipedia except the main page. ED promoted the video in December 2008, and it was during this period that Caitlin Moran recorded her reactions to it. Many YouTube users have done the same thing, and although no individual video is notable, the large number of YouTube reaction videos are a notable part of the story. The Yatzenko video is not on YouTube (unsurprisingly), although I do sometimes wonder whether attempts have been made to upload it. Incidentally, the Yatzenko video is the all-time most watched video on its main home, with over a million views the last time I looked. This is an extraordinary figure for a shock site video, and all the more remarkable since it has received so little coverage in the English language media.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Your comments would be appreciated @
Proposed rewrite for Appeal to ignorance.
I don't know if you are still interested in the article Appeal to ignorance or not, but I have proposed this rewrite and invite comment. (I'm still polishing it but I think I have the structure of it right).
- I made the rewrite of Appeal to ignorance live. 184.108.40.206 Agenzen (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Your Deletion Today from article on General Semantics
Hi ... I read the explanation you gave for a deletion made today in the article on general semantics: "I'm not sure what the author intended to say." Categorization of general semantics has been problematic. Does it meet the founder's claims of "empirical science?" Does it qualify as science of any kind? Does it have a home -- any home -- in academia? The sentence you deleted attempted to establish a transition to considering categories that are outside the purview of academia.
I'm not the grand Pooh-Bah when it comes to article writing and editing, but I do know there's a general bias in wikipedia against deleting.
That was a weak reference for the Swarts synthesis, but it's actually a real book (http://www.amazon.com/Excuse-Would-Like-Isopropyl-Bromide/dp/B000I3Z28Y). I just thought I'd share. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've found a pdf of it online. It's a book of sorts, but I really don't think that it is the memoir of a real person. Reads like a lame parody to me.
- It has an Amazon ID number, but not (as far as I can tell) a valid ISBN. (I used http://www.isbnsearch.org/search?s=B000I3Z28Y to check). Phiwum (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Notification of user conduct discussion
You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Paul Bedson, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you commented at one of the articles or AfDs that are cited in the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Bushmaster Firearms International".
Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting opening comments from participants. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Amadscientist (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)