User talk:Me, Myself, and I are Here

Welcome! If I've made a mistake, please inform me. Feel free to break out the trout.

Learning about sources

So ... I think the first question is, what, exactly do you want to learn about sources? Researching them (fixing dead links, tracking down cryptic sources and fully identifying them, etc.)? That's all I've been doing here, so far. Or evaluating them in terms of starting a new article? Or evaluating existing references to make a call if a source needs to be replaced with a better one or not? That, for me, is a second phase that I'm only starting to gear up for, here.

I think the first thing you need to do is to is to clarify for yourself what your goal is ... what is it that you'd like to do, but don't feel confident enough to do it right now. One thing that I've heard from you, loud and clear, is that you're very self-aware of your abilities. That's a good thing. The people who cause trouble are those who think they know it all. Nobody does. That's not you ... you know when you're on the limits of what you know, and you stop there. Being able to know when you don't know something, to have that awareness is crucial. Not everybody has it. You do. That's why I agreed to spend some time with you on this. I know you have what it takes to develop those skills you're looking for help on.

There is a line I like to use, paraphrased from "Alice in Wonderland": Start at the beginning. Proceed, through the middle. And when you reach the end, stop. It's so obvious, but human nature sometimes gets in the way, and we have to remind ourselves of it.

I think I have a good sense of where you are, and where you'd like to go, but I'd really like you to take some time to think it over, and to hear you say in your own words where you are now, what you think you need, and where is it that you'd like to be when we're done.

This is the "start at the beginning" part of any project. Defining the scope, setting the goals, establishing what completion looks like. Many a project gets derailed, because it didn't start at the beginning.

While you're thinking about this, I'll also throw out a question or two to help me understand where you're at, and what you need to work on. I suspect you know more than you realize. Don't worry about getting the answers "right" or "wrong". It's not a test. It's an assessment, so I can know what it is we need to work on, and to help you realize what you already know. Sound fair? If so, I'll throw out my first question. Hi-storian (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Question 1

What is the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources?

Give a few examples of each.

Hi-storian (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: (From what I understand)

1. Primary sources: sources that are the originators of the information it reports (in terms of use in historical study, most likely created by persons that lived in/experienced a certain time period or event)

• Diary of someone living in [time period]
• Images and photographs of a natural disaster

1. Secondary sources: reports and synthesizes information presented in primary sources, may overlap with primary source (autobiographies and memoirs written after the fact may be used to explore the subject or the time period)

• Academic journals
• News articles (those reporting on findings of a study etc.)

1. Tertiary sources: sources that use the information of, summarize or report on primary and secondary sources

• Textbooks
• Reference books (medical dictionaries etc.)
• Encyclopedias

My first test! I'm so excited. Me, Myself & I (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not bad! See, you do know something about this! And, no, it's not a test. It's an assessment. I want to see what you know, so I can know what we need to work on, and what I don't have to explain, because you already know it. It's more the start of your first lesson. Still exciting, I know.

The idea of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is key to evaluating sources. These three tiers generally run from most reliable to least reliable. But there are exceptions. We can ignore those exceptions, for now, but we'll come back to them, later. So let's expand on your definitions, a bit.

A primary source is a direct witness to a fact or event. It can be created by an individual directly involved, but it don't have to be. It can also be created by a third party who serves as a witness to the fact or event. Also note that I'm using the term "fact" along with "event". This is in important part, because with a third party document, you could get confused and consider it a secondary source. So, let's take a look at some of the kinds of primary sources you didn't name, and explore why they're primary, by the definition I used.

A huge amount of primary sources include government documents. For example, vital records, such as birth, marriage and death certificates, which are direct witnesses to both the event and the facts. A birth certificate, for example, gives not only the date of birth of an individual, but also the place of birth, the name of the mother (and father, if known) and often times many other details such as the race of the child and parents, the occupations of the parents and their citizenship. It is signed (or "certified") by the attending physician, who can personally attest to the facts by personal knowledge. When he signs (certifies) the certificate, he is attesting to the facts. This makes the certificate, itself, a direct witness.

Another example are the Acts and Resolves of a State or Province. They are a direct witness to the facts or events that they may pertain to. The incorporation of a company, the people incorporated, and the privileges granted to them. The creation of a government agency, and the powers granted to it. The signatures on an original bill attest to the fact of the bill having passed the House and Senate, and the signature of the Governor attests to his grant of approval, making it a law. When the law books are printed at the end of the year, the Secretary of State signs a certificate, which is part of the book, attesting that he compared the book with the original documents, and that the book is a true copy. This makes the law books a direct witness, without having to go to the state archives and viewing the original document.

So when I say a primary source is a direct witness, it's not because it was created by direct participant in the event, it could be the "creation" of a third party who had no knowledge of the event. But rather, there is a continuous chain of attestation that flows from the event to the primary source. The publisher of the law book has no clue what happened in the House or Senate chamber, yet the law book is a primary source, because the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate knew what happened, and they attested to what happened. The Secretary of State wasn't in the chambers, but he recognizes the signatures on the original document, and can attest to both the passage of the act, and that the text of the law book is an accurate copy of the original document. That is what makes the law book a "direct witness" ... the chain of attestation. You're probably starting to get a sense of how the question of what is a primary source is a bit more nuanced than you may have expected. So let's continue ...

A news article can also be a primary source. Let's take, for example, a news report of a hurricane hitting a certain city. The news story was written by a reporter who literally experienced the event. When he writes his report, he signs it, attesting to the facts and events he reported. The editor of the newspaper recognizes his reporter's signature, and can attest that the report came from an individual who he assigned to report on the event. The publisher of the newspaper can attest to the fact that the editor is working on his behalf. This same chain of attestation is present when the newspaper reports on a baseball game attended by one of their reporters. In these cases, the newspaper, itself, is a direct witness of the facts and events reported.

So, at this point, I think you have a better idea of what makes a source "primary". Can you give me a couple other examples of primary sources, and why they are primary? Hi-storian (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: Whew! Sorry it took so long. I'm not very good at this, I'm afraid I was racking my brains and I couldn't come up with anything that was of the more nuanced variety. – I really can't think of anything else other than the government documents you mentioned and the overlapping of primary/secondary sources. I need more lessons!

1. Witness testimony and interviews: primary because it reproduces the experiences of a direct participant (see, not the nuanced kind)
2. Film/footage of an event: primary for reasons similar to that of photographs of an event
3. Letters written by people living in a specific time period: primary because it was created by direct witness/participant during that time period
4. Archaeological relics and artifacts: created by people living during the time
5. Portraits provide an idea of the subject's appearance (may be unreliable if embellished): verified by the artist, who sees the subject

(I was wondering if this would count:)

1. Fossils, trapped pollen, and ice cores provide information on prehistoric climates, flora and fauna

Hey, kid, welcome back! I didn't mean for you to rack your brains that hard ... though I did want you to think about it a bit. The fact that you struggled with some cases that you thought overlapped between primary and secondary is a good sign. There are many cases where something can be both primary and secondary. It is not so straight forward. The nature of a source depends on the context. So in my eyes, the fact that you had a hard time is not a sign that you're "not very good at this" ... it's a sign that you have some awareness that things can be complicated ... you're basically running ahead of me a few lessons.

You're actually on a very good track when you said "Witness testimony" ... basically primary sources are things you can use in court. Courts will not accept things that are not primary sources and have formal rules to establish the chain of attestation I was talking about. I like your Archaeological evidence and trace evidence ... used in science and law all the time.

Another example is business records. Receipts, pay stubs, phone bills ... many a court case hinges on this ... but there's a catch. The records cannot be used until someone can attest to them. That's why when a receipt or a bill is presented in evidence in court, they always call an employee of the business as a witness. After the formalities, they present the employee with the evidence and ask, "is this a record produced by your company in the routine course of business?" When the employee answers "yes", he/she's attesting to the record, thereby making it a primary source, and admissible in court. Only then does the lawyer move to admit the evidence as an exhibit. Likewise, physical evidence in a case has to have what police calls a "chain of custody" to show the evidence has not been tampered with.

Moving from law to science, certainly the examples you gave were good ones. But sometimes it isn't a physical object, but a document. Say a scientist performs an experiment. In science, there's a formal form of report that is used to describe the experiment, the techniques used, the results achieved, the possible sources of error, and the conclusions. That report is, of course, signed, and therefore becomes a primary source. It's a direct witness to the experiment.

Going from science to technology, an inventor is trying to come up with a new gadget. He draws up several ideas, and tries them out. He finds problems with his early designs, and tries something different. As he does this, he makes notes, and signs and dates his notes. The inventor's notebooks are a primary source ... they are a direct witness to the fact and event of his invention.

Shifting to more of any everyday thing ... you receive an expensive package. When the delivery man arrives, he asks you to sign for it. His record of deliveries is a direct witness to the fact that the item was delivered to you. You're creating primary sources all the time ... so much so that you don't even think about it. That's one of the reasons why it's hard to come up with ideas. But the question to ask to determine if a source is primary or not is always the same: Is it a direct witness to the fact or event?

Make sense?? Do you have any questions about this point? If not, I'll move to the next, um, "lesson". Hi-storian (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

(sigh)

Take a look at Ebers Papyrus before and after my edits, today and tell me I didn't do a good job tracking down the most OBSCURE refs I've seen, yet! (sigh) Okay, so I'm looking for a pat on the back ... thought you might appreciate the struggle I had. Hi-storian (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: I can very much relate to that. A section of 20-30 references, if the links are dead or bare and the citations themselves are misformatted, takes me the better part of an hour to fix. It must have been quite tedious to do. Good work! Me, Myself & I (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you catch what happened with ref 2 in particular? Hi-storian (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: Ah yes. My favourite. Links to the Wikipedia articles for the U.S. National Medical Library and National Institutes of Health... Me, Myself & I (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, but did you see what it turned into? Do you know how I got from one to the other?? Hi-storian (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW, did you see the post "Learning about sources" on this page? You haven't replied to it. Don't know if you missed it or you're still thinking about it.

Yes: the "source" in the caption . I thought you meant the article caption, and then I clicked on the image. How did you find it?

I didn't read the message (oops). I only read this one and the question. I will go read it. (This isn't WP:MYSPACEing, is it? I am trying to learn about improving sources on Wikipedia). Me, Myself & I (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL! No, I'm not interested in you that way. We're keeping the talk strictly to issues that are directly Wikipedia related. Perhaps friendly colleagues, but anything more inappropriate than that. As for the beloved Ref. 2, I figured that there may have been a bad edit somewhere, so I kept going back in the article's history, until the ref. disappeared. Then I did a diff between the edits where it happened. Lo, and behold, the two article links were part of a caption underneath the pic. Before that ... nothing, like it was a dead end. But then I looked at that old page again, and clicked on the pic. There is was, the pic's file caption was "supporting" the point in question. Now how can anyone consider that a "source"? But yup, that was the answer, strange as it was. Hi-storian (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: (Phew! I was just thrown off by how much my talk page edit count ballooned and all the emoticons I'm using. Someone might mistake this for something untoward. I only meant the blogging part, by the way. )

As for my study of sources, I think I can track down dead links well enough for now; I need far more practice with the evaluation (both existing and soon-to-be-existing, i.e. new article references). I'm not a content contributor because (in terms of breaking news) I'm very slow on the uptake, and I lack expertise in seemingly every field, and can never be certain whether or not to trust a source. It'll help prepare me for any content I write and any articles I might create in the future.

At least they didn't put recursive links to the article itself as a reference. That probably has happened. Me, Myself & I (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What? You don't like seeing so many emoticons? Okay, I'll try to lay off them. I guess I use 'em as a replacement for tone of voice, which doesn't translate to text too well. As for sources, I get you. Yes, it can be very confusing, and as we go, I'm going to throw you some examples that are specifically confusing. But what I'm going to try to do is show you a way of thinking about sources that keeps them in the proper perspective for a given situation. We'll go back and forth, with simple cases, at first, getting more and more challenging, until you start catching some of my curve balls. If you miss a few, that's fine ... that's what learning is all about. We'll just work at it, getting better and better until you say, "Hey! I get it! And you start tossing me some zingers. And I'll say, "Wow! You've got it! Go get 'em, kid!" As I said many times, you do have what it takes, that much is clear. It's all about a way of thinking about things. It's not something you study, it's something you practice. And, yes, your talk page may need to be archived before we're done. (Resisting the urge to put an emoticon here.) For me, helping you back is my way of thanking you for your help. You show the potential, and the motivation to get where you want, and just need a little guidance, that's all. So why wouldn't I want to help? (Really resisting the urge, again!) I think I'll step away from the keyboard so I can get a few smiles out of my system. Hi-storian (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: I'm fine with emoticons. I used one right after the statement to underscore my point – I probably use too many, and I should probably cut back. I have no business telling you how to type your replies. The tone of voice thing is very true – it helps disambiguate an ambiguous statement.

Well, thank you very much! I am ready and willing to practice (although I am rather busy...I really should be shutting off my computer and walking away...If I receive any "assignments" like fetching more primary sources , I might not complete them right away. Drat, I should have used "quiz" to circumvent that test technicality). Me, Myself & I (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL! Now, now!! It's just a game of "catch", that's all. I toss a ball out, you toss it back, and so on. And you don't have to "fetch" nothing ... just think about things that you do where documents are created. Hi-storian (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Lesson 2

What is it about a secondary source that makes it secondary?

Again, don't rack your poor brains too hard ... but give it a little thought, and give me the best you can, and then we'll explore it further. Remember, "I don't know" is always a valid answer. There is no shame in saying "I don't know". It's the first step in learning. But to be honest, I think you know more than you realize. You did better than you thought with the last question, er, lesson ... so relax, this is not a test ... it's just an assessment at the start of our next lesson! Hi-storian (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: LOL! Okay.

Uh...secondary sources build themselves from primary sources, duplicating/reporting on and providing synthesis, analysis, and fresh perspectives on the first-hand/attested material of primary sources. As we previously discussed, with some items/types of sources, there is some overlap with primary sources. I look forward to better understanding the subtleties of secondary sources. Me, Myself & I (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Opps! Almost forgot! For your effort, you get ... a cookie! Hi-storian (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for you kind and wise comments. The war was over before you came by, but I appreciate your efforts to keep the peace. I actually thanked the user for stopping and gave him/her a cookie. I think my point has been made, but I appreciate the support. Oh, I hadn't seen that particular essay, but it makes the point well. I've saved the link for future reference. Once again, you impress me for your wisdom and sensibility. There are many adults who don't have what you do. Hope you're having a pleasant weekend. Take care, as always.

Hi-storian (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: Thanks! I'm glad the war didn't get too far: I don't want any ill will developing between productive members of this community. I just wanted to offer my as-neutral-as-possible opinion. I hope I'm not imposing – I'm not used to this WikiJaguaring thing. In the future, can I suggest opening a talk page thread before reinstating tags? That may help stop the war before it begins. Me, Myself & I (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL! Don't worry, I wasn't going to let myself get baited. I actually looked up the guidelines, and found out what the technical definition of WP:editwar was, and found the dispute resolution process just in case it got that far, and tried to keep myself calm and constructive at all times, even though it was clear that the user was being confrontational. You were very welcome to add your 2c ... even if it is in Canadian. I really did appreciate the support and peacekeeping tone and wisdom you brought into the scene. You never cease to impress me. I did post a talk, but it turned out he/she was already posting a talk on my page as I was posting on his/hers. I agree with your advice: post talk first, then revert. I'm not sure I did that, but I'll keep it in mind in the future. It's sound advice. (sigh) Thanks again.

I've been trying to clean-up and sort Egyptologists ... knowing who these people are who are writing the books I'm looking at helps in understanding the reliability of the source, its significance, the significance of names and places that I'll run across ... so although I'll never touch every one of those over a hundred articles, the sorting alone has a value, and I will be updating the articles of the Egyptologists who have a hand in the tiny corner of the world (history of medicine) that I inhabit. Who knows? Maybe I'll have a friend or two helping me. Thanks again. Hi-storian (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: That's the trouble with communicating through edit summaries, I find: they come off as terse and sometimes (as you put it) confrontational. I looked into FruitMonkey's history (in the least creepy way I know how) and as far as I can tell, they are a respected and experienced editor in good standing. I don't think they intended to come across as standoffish at all. Ah, well, that's why it's good to take it to the talk page. Me, Myself & I (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey there. Didn't get a flash on the top of my page. As far as what happened with that other user, you didn't see it in real time ... it was very clear that he (most likely he) was very intent on being confrontational. It felt like I was watching a 4-year-old throwing a temper tantrum. But enough of that ... it's over. Hope your weekend was better than mine ... though that wouldn't be hard. I'm slowly getting better ... only crashing once or maybe twice a day ... much more coherent. Maybe next weekend I can try to get back on track and start writing up the lessons we started on. The meds were definitely getting in the way on that, and the last thing I wanted to do was come off incoherently and make you totally confused because I was ... incoherent due to the meds. Sometimes you got to take life one day at a time ... sometimes one minute at a time. But hey, it's life, whatta gonna do? Take care, my friend, and thanks again, as always. Hi-storian (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: (Sorry – didn't see this until now! Saw the message below, but not this one. Oops!) I'll make this quick: once again, I'm glad that things are going better for you, and I'm looking forward to finally being able to evaluate sources with some measure of confidence. Thanks, and take care. Me, Myself & I (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance on Bangladesh-related articles

Thanks for your help cleaning up Religion in Bangladesh. Many of its problems stemmed from the activities of BangladeshPatriot Ifaz, one in a lengthening line of sockpuppets. Their disruptive edits, unsourced or sourced to the fictitious website www.govt.bd.com, have been removed. I've tried to preserve the improvements you made outside of their edits. My apologies if I missed any. Worldbruce (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Worldbruce, for your hard work. Most of my edits were quite minor, anyway, so there's no harm done if you missed any – I can always go back and add it back. I was unaware that the user in question was a sockpuppet until I saw the investigation notice on BangladeshPatriot Ifaz's page. For the longest time, I (somewhat ignorantly) assumed that it was a non-native speaker trying to add references to www.bangladesh.gov.bd/. Huh...I didn't think that socks would use such similar names. Well, thanks for telling me. Have a nice day! Me, Myself & I (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So, kid ... what do you have in mind?

Hey there. I'm slowly recovering ... I'm not quite 100% yet ... but I'm somewhere around 98-99%, and I know that I'm sometimes too much of a perfectionist, so I'm making a point of saying, "good enough" and trying to move on with life. So, I guess my question, at this point, is where are you at in terms of working together, or not, on a project?

I kindda get the sense that you're perhaps a bit less than excited about the ancient Egyptian medicine idea ... or perhaps you're just a bit less then excited about me, who knows? Or maybe just that you've taken my advice and gotten involved in whatever it was you were procrastinating on. (There's that fatherly streak in me kicking in, again.) At any rate, I'm starting to come up to a point where my project can fork in a few different directions, and I'd like to get your input so I can figure out which direction to go in, next.

I wound up putting my original main project on hold, as I felt that building a full proficiency in the history of medicine is just too essential, and I really want to weave that thread fully into my story, just as I was planning on weaving in the history of the city thread in. I think the impact to the final product will be worth the gamble I'm taking now. So at this point I'm "all in" on "history of medicine". Almost all of the published histories I've seen start with the Greeks, or later, and take the typical Euro-centric view that dominates almost everything in the Western world. Now, there are actually plenty of good reasons for that, but that's not the story I want to tell. Going before the Greeks, and trying to include more than the Western world in the story is a lot of work. Resources start to get sparse. Language becomes a problem. The evidence isn't always there where you'd like it to be. Much of the work done is less than professional or incomplete.

Ancient Egypt has struck me as an ideal starting point, as it sits on the edge of the extremes that you find in other places and eras. The Greco-Roman era and later have been so much written about, that the amount of sources can be overwhelming, and it may be bit of a task to sort through it all. On the other hand, the contemporaries of the Egyptians, the Mesopotamians, have had so little written that finding enough good, current works on the subject will be a challenge. Anywhere else on the planet, or before the time of the Egyptians and Mesopotamians lands us squarely into prehistory. The work that has been done in that era is, well, just plain underwhelming. Either there's too much speculation, or it's the raw work of archaeologists, and too technical and not well vetted and integrated into a larger picture, or it is, literally, nothing more than a children's book.

Ancient Egypt, on the other hand, has always been a popular subject ... the exotic look of the culture's art and the mystery of the lost language created an irresistible aura that even Napoleon couldn't escape. Yet the loss of the language and sparseness of what literature has been found, so far, has limited, somewhat, the serious research that could be done on some topics, medicine certainly being one of them. The corpus that we have to work with is certainly incomplete. We don't have copies of all the texts known to have existed, and of the texts we do have, none are complete. Only a few of the papyri have duplications of a text, so the ability to do textual critical analysis is limited, but there are enough occurrences that the principles can be demonstrated. There are only a few current works on the subject, but what is there is well done for the territory that it covers. In other words, ancient Egyptian medicine seems to be an ideal starting point as it's the "Goldilocks" ... not too big, not too small, but juuuuuuust right. Granted, some of its most important work was done in German, but modern translations have built on the German scholarship, so it's not necessary to know German to take advantage of the work they've done.

So, at the moment, I'm at a bit of a crossroads in my research. There are a number of different paths I can take from here. On one road, I can go deeper into the scholarship, and take up learning German to get a better understanding of the key linguistic research that's been done. Or I can go deeper into texts, and take up ancient Egyptian to read the texts directly in their native tongue. Or I could go deeper into mummification, and the recent scientific study of mummies to get a better understanding of what, exactly, was the extent of their knowledge of anatomy and the limits of their surgical tools and techniques. Or I can go deeper into the artistic record and try to locate as many image sources as I can find, to see how many examples of various aspects of medicine and anatomy I can demonstrate through visual resources. Or I can focus on the structure of the project and talk about how to develop a framework for a project and then flesh it out. I'm sure there are many other possibilities to explore, but I haven't thought of, just yet.

Of course, there's also the possibility of putting ancient Egypt, itself, entirely on hold, and put my energies elsewhere for a little while, if that makes more sense. We could, for example, just go right back to the lesson plan I first had in mind ... though what lead me to propose the project to you was the realization that just talking theory about handling sources tends to remain just that ... theory, until you actually dig in, and get your hands dirty, and start working material for yourself. Of course, whatever we do must not get in the way of your existing commitments, so in the end, it's up to you. Which way would you like to go in, and why? I'm not going to base my next moves solely on your response, but I do want to take your situation and interests (or the lack, thereof) into consideration before committing myself to something that may not be in both of our best interests.

Hope you're doing well, and things are going fine in your world. Thanks for being a friend and looking out for me ... that's not something I've seen very often in my life, unfortunately , but it just makes me value the few times it does happen all the more, I guess. Take care and wish you well. Hi-storian (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: I'm sorry for not relying earlier – this was quite a chunk of text to digest . At this point, all the procrastination is catching up to me. Like many others, I have my eye on a whole bunch of articles, a whole other set of life obligations outside of Wikipedia, and not enough time to do everything in both worlds. If this were the holidays, I would already be at the library looking up sources. But as things stand, I'm constrained source-wise to the stuff I can find on my computer, as valuable library time must be dedicated to schoolwork.

As for the different paths...I have no idea. Whatever improves this encyclopedic work-in-progress is worth undertaking. If this project is put on hold, I'd just go back to clearing my to-do list folder in my bookmarks...more than 50 articles long, and several maintenance categories wide. All of it seems quite daunting: "learn German," "learn Ancient Egyptian"...if I were to attempt anything with this, I would stick to the safe modern English publications to reduce the chance of my misinterpreting a source. Perhaps you should contact some of the Wikipedian historians (I find it strange that you aren't on there) around here, and maybe some German-speaking Wikipedians. I can help with basic formatting and cleanup, and that's about the limit of the expertise that I can offer.

Searching for images and learning about mummies seems like a good start, but it seems like figuring out an approach and developing a framework for the project, determining the scope of the project, and clearly stating what to do with each article is most pragmatic. But you probably already have a list somewhere, don't you? Breaking each article within the determined scope down into little units of work to be undertaken incrementally would be preferable, but perhaps unfeasible for some articles. As I've stating on my userpage, I edit somewhat randomly, finding stuff to do by clicking through related articles, maintenance categories, and sometimes recent changes. Focus is not really my strong suit.

Life is busy, busy, busy, but not unmanageable, so I will help wherever I can. As for being a friend, thank you! Everyone needs the support of meatspace friends, and it's the same here. I'm just happy to be of help in general.

P.S. You're probably right about this talk page needing archiving soon. Me, Myself & I (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey there! Didn't mean to overwhelm you ... please don't think that I intended you to learn some foreign languages along with me! Rather, what I was trying to say is that I've got a number of directions I can go in, and depending on your interests, it would help me prioritize what work I'm going to do next. I don't intend on having you do this on your own. It's not a school assignment. Rather, I'll be doing the heavy lifting, but I'm offering to take you along with me for the ride, to show you what goes on, behind the scenes, to show you what questions I ask, where I go, what tools I use, etc. I also intend to continue the discussion we started on about sources ... but it occurred to me that talking about these concepts in the abstract, or in a vacuum, is like looking at a mummy versus a living human being ... certainly it's useful, but there is something missing. My idea on working the project with you was not to place an additional burden on your shoulders. Rather, what I'm looking to do is to put some meat on the bones of the concepts ... to show you how these ideas play out in real life, with a real-world example.

So that's the method behind my madness. I know I wrote a rather long message ... but part of what I was trying to explain is how I came up with the decision of ancient Egypt as a starting point. I started by going to the city library and going through the all the "history of medicine" books I could find, and got a sense of their contents, especially their starting points. I couldn't help but notice the consistent use of a later starting point then I expected. As I said, they all started with the Greeks, or later. So then, I looked at what sources I could find for earlier cultures, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and prehistoric. Prehistoric stood out as particularly challenging, so I moved on. What I found for Egyptian, in contrast to Mesopotamian, really stood out. That's when I asked you about looking up ancient Egyptian medicine at your library, and checking out your ILL resources as well. Of course, yes, I did have a good idea of what you may find, but I did, and still do, want you to go through that process for yourself. Library skills are just as essential as the 3R's, but when I went to school, it really wasn't taught very well, which is unfortunate. Today, with the Internet, I'm afraid that library skills have taken even more of a backseat to Google.

Unfortunately, that's when the meds really started overwhelming me, and I wound up going off on a tangent that was both irrelevant and inappropriate. For that, I can only apologize and ask for your forgiveness. You did prove yourself to have the better head of the two of us in that exchange. You impressed me and I kindda humiliated myself ... which is why I would understand if you didn't want to work with me any further. And I didn't want to impose on you, if that were the case.

I take it that you're a "go" on the ancient Egyptian medicine, but you did make clear that you've got other priorities, and that you can't do any heavy lifting on the subject, which I honestly never expected of you. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear that point. I knew I was in a bit of a fog from the meds ... so again, I'm sorry about the confusion ... that was me, not you.

You've also got me figured out as a bit of a teacher ... and yes, no teacher starts on a subject without having some sort of lesson plan mapped out, and research done, so that the teacher has a sufficient command of the subject before trying to explain it to someone else. Imagine how tough school would be if that were not the case ... it'd be nothing more than the blind leading the blind ... though some teachers are better at explaining things than others. I'm sure you've seen that, before, though. So, when I do ask you to do something, or look at something, I'm doing it for a reason. I'm not going to ask you to do my work for me ... that's my responsibility. But rather, what I'm asking is for you to explore things and discover for yourself some of the key points I'm trying to teach.

Learning is a process of discovery. Boring teachers try to teach by lecturing their students. Yawn. Why not just read a book? The teachers that captured my interest were the ones that took us on a tour through a subject, letting us explore and discover for ourselves, but acting as a tour guide, helping to focus our exploration and discovery in the most productive directions ... eliminating some of the randomness that would naturally happen if we were left to our own. So that's the role I'm trying to play, here. And interestingly enough, what I'm hearing from you is that left to yourself on Wikipedia, your experience has been ... random. I understand. You said, "Focus is not really my strong suit". I get ya! That's what I'm trying to bring to the picture.

So back to my questions, as for the "German" path, what I'd be exploring there is more about language analysis. Egyptian was not just a dead language, it was a lost language. The difference can best be shown by looking at Latin. Latin is a dead language. Children do not grow up in their homes learning Latin as a first language. But Latin is not a lost language. Scholars still read and write Latin, and on occasion, even speak it. Latin vocabulary and grammar are still very well known, and it still affects and influences modern languages today. Science makes extensive use of both Greek and Latin in its nomenclature. Egyptian, on the other hand, was entirely lost. Even the most knowledgeable scholars hadn't the slightest clue what Egyptian writing meant. Everything we know of Egyptian was reconstructed, starting with Champollion's decypherment of the Rosetta Stone in 1822. There are some unique traits of the Egyptian language that were keys to our understanding of it. Traits that are not seen in any other language. But still, there is so much of Egyptian that we don't understand. The German path would explore how we know what we know of Egyptian, and what we don't know, in the context of medicine, but what I'd share with you would apply to any other subject as well. The key reference for this is an 11 volume work written in German. It's very tough to find this reference, and I wouldn't ask you to try. But rather, if I choose to go down that path, we'd be talking a lot about language, and you did show an interest in French, so I thought it may be something that may appeal to you.

As for the "Egyptian" path, that's more about something we call Textual criticism. What that's all about is trying to understand what we know about ancient texts by identifying multiple copies of them and comparing them, trying to understand what clues they may contain about what the original text looked like, when it was written, and by who. I don't intend to go into great detail about how textual criticism is done, but rather, give you an introduction to the concept, and show you a key part of how historians know what they know, and just how much we don't know, and why it's hard to fill in the gaps, sometimes. This path will take a closer look at the papyri than other paths. This is also the path where there are the most existing Wikipedia articles in English. So, if you're more interested in editing existing articles, this may be a better path for you.

The mummification path would, obviously, go deeper into the medical, and especially the anatomical aspect of the subject. The question explored there is: what do mummies have to tell us about Egyptian knowledge of anatomy? How much can they tell us about medical practices beyond mummification, itself? Some of the most important photographs on this subject are, unfortunately, quite graphic ... and that's what I was trying to warn you about, while I was fogged out by the meds and wound up doing a rather bad job of it. But the fact that you replied indicates that you seem to have gotten over it, for which I can only thank you. If you have any interest in anything in a medical field in your future, this may be a good avenue to explore.

The artistic path would be great if you're more of a visual person. I get the sense you may be more verbally inclined then visually, but then again, you may be a bit of both. What I'd be looking at on that path is what did Egyptian art mean to them? How did they use it? What can it tell us? What can it not tell us? I'd be looking at both typical Egyptian art, and how it represented the body, and atypical examples and exploring what we can learn from them. I'd also be looking at what Egyptian art can tell us about medicine. What kind of medical conditions can we find in their art? What don't we find? What does it tell us? We'd actually be spending more time on Wikimedia Commons than Wikipedia, and would also have to contend with copyright issues, which may or may not be something of interest to you.

So I guess the question I'm asking is which part of "history of ancient Egyptian medicine" interests you most? "History?" "Ancient?" "Egyptian?" or "Medicine?" All of the paths are equally valid, and all have an important role in the final product. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer. What I'm actually trying to do is to take a big subject and break it down into manageable chunks. Hmmmm ... isn't that something you suggested? I like the way you think, kid.

As to where to start, well, once again, your instincts are taking you on the right path. Starting with an outline, laying out a framework, defining a scope is certainly an excellent place to start. It's part of the "asking the question" that I talked about before. If you don't ask the right questions at the start of a project, you wind up with the creeping, crawling project that never dies. You've got to set some boundaries for yourself.

I like your idea of a modular approach to Wikipedia. It's very much like the modular approach to programming. It's also very well fitted to an article like this one. "History of ancient Egyptian medicine" can fit as a module within both a "History of medicine" and a "History of ancient Egypt" framework. If well built, this module could fit into both frameworks equally well. You also see that this module can be broken down into submodules, each of which could fit into other frameworks, as well. We could have a submodule on Egyptian mummies that would fit into a framework of Mummies as well as ancient Egyptian medicine. We could have a submodule on Egyptian art that fits into an expanded Art of ancient Egypt. So yes, once again, you're proving to yourself that you have a good head on your shoulders, and your instincts are good.

Speaking of instincts ... (sigh) Okay, yes. You got me. I do have something up my sleeve. So, here's a quick draft of what I think a typical "History of .... medicine" article should look like, though not in final order. Basically what I tried to do was flesh out the key areas to be described, with ancient Egypt in mind as a model, but could be used for other places and times equally well. The first part, "Background" covers things that will not be covered in the article, but are things that are important to understand to be able to put the things we will cover in a proper context. I'm not going to ask you to research any of this stuff. But where it does apply, I may be giving you some quick lessons on those subjects to bring you up to speed, and so you can understand what I'm saying, rather than getting lost in the mumbo jumbo. The last section of that outline, "Authorities", focuses on who are the key players in the subject. Who can we rely on to be a credible source? That's one of the reasons I was tagging away on a ton of articles a few days ago.

The second part of this page, the outline headed "Medicine" is a sample outline of what a final article should look like, IMHO. This is, by no means, a final version ... it's only a first draft. As I said, I don't expect you to do the heavy lifting. But yes, I may ask a question, and have something up my sleeve ... just as you suspected. You're too clever for me, aren't you?? But then again, one of the things we identified as needing help was your confidence. So, one of the things I'm going to do is let you find out just how much you already know and understand. Sure, I had the outline up my sleeve ... but it's you who, after considering the options, realized where we should start and why. So, A+, my friend! Not that I'm grading you, but rather, just telling you I'm impressed at your answer, and telling you that you're absolutely right. Now, as you look at the "Medicine" outline, please keep in mind that we're not going to cover every single point on the outline. In fact, we're only going to do perhaps a quarter of it. Which items we cover depend on which path we choose. Or, if you still have problems choosing a path, we can start with the outline and choose some items, and see which path we need to take for those items.

Now, if we were going to write a book about ancient Egyptian medicine, we would need to cover the entire page, both the "Background" and "Medicine" outlines. Of course, in the book, we'd boil "Background" down into one or two chapters, at the most, of our book, but we'd have to include it all. With Wikipedia, we don't have to include it, because we can Wikilink to those items, instead. Can't do that on a book! As for the bullet points on "Medicine", some of them will be sections and subsections, some paragraphs, and some may not be more than a single sentence or two. Of course, we'll probably refine the outline as we go along. If there's anything missing that you can think of, by all means, let me know. But I think it's a pretty solid start.

Well, I obviously can really write a lot, can't I? So yeah, I think we'll both have to look into how to set-up archiving. But I think everything I'm saying is important, isn't it? I'm not just chit-chatting, though some days, a little chit-chat to break the pace is okay, so as long as it does not become the main focus of the conversation. That would cross into myspacing. But for being friends while working on a legitimate Wikipedia project, that's okay, I think. But I better cut this before it's your bedtime.

So, on that note, think this over, look over the outline, and let me know what you come up with. BTW, don't go wandering around in my sandbox ... you don't know what test answers, er, sand castles, yeah, fragile sand castles you may accidentally knock down in there! Just kidding. I told you I wasn't going to do tests ... and I wouldn't keep 'em online, either. I've been around before, you know!

Take care and don't forget to do your homework! Hi-storian (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: When linking to a Category page, be sure to add a colon. That is, [[:Category:Wikipedian historians]], not [[Category:Wikipedian historians]]. The first version (with the extra colon) is a link. The second version (normal syntax) puts the page in the category. This syntax is also used with Files. [[:File:filename.jpg]] is a link to a file page. [[File:filename.jpg]] includes the file as a pic in your page.

@High-storian: Oh dear. The colons. That completely slipped my mind. And here I am, thinking that I know my basic wikicode...foolish me. Thanks. There's no need to apologize, I understand fully, and I can always stop the project if necessary.

That was quite an impressive speech there. 16,000+ bytes...I've already looked into archiving, but I am simply too lazy to set it up. But a few more messages and then it will become a must. I will try to condense the rest of my message accordingly:

As for my interests, "medicine" is very much one of them. I do like "history" but I have trouble remembering dates and time periods. I'm not much of a geography buff, so "Egypt" alone isn't what does it for me; it's "ancient Egypt" together that I like. I'm quite relieved that I don't have to learn German; frankly, I have a hard enough time with English and French. That draft does seem daunting, but pretty good for a rough outline. I personally am drawn to the cultural and social aspects in the background and herbal medicine, fractures and burns in the medicine section. Would that be a good place to start? Me, Myself & I (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, I am a writer, aren't I? Sorry for the length, but I did want to try to make the options clear ... sorry about that. Yeah, we're getting near the point where archiving is recommended (though not required). I looked into it and set myself up for ClueBot III with sequentially numbered archives, which seems to be the simplest option. It's just a matter of adding a few lines of code to the top of your talk page. The default is 90 days before archiving, I set mine to 30 days ... anything older than that's history, as far as I'm concerned. If you wish, I could do it for you.

So ... hmmmmm ... "cultural and social aspects", okay, and you certainly seem to be a "go" for mummies, huh? Did anyone ever tell you you're strange?? That's okay, I happen to like strange. Be yourself. Don't try to be anybody else. The authenticity always comes across better than trying to fit the mold of the "popular" crowd when you're not. You certainly don't come across as sheepole. Let everybody else do that.

So ... what to do with this ... hmmmmm ... it sounds to me like we're going to wind up mostly cutting new ground, as far as the existing Wikipedia articles are concerned. We'll definitely want to go over the Edwin Smith Papyrus. But it sounds like you're most itching to start tearing at the Mummy page, aren't ya'? I honestly didn't do too much work on that area, yet. I did notice that it needs a lot of work. The article, as it sits now, is inconsistent with itself. I think I know why. It doesn't seem to be active, so I don't think we'll get anyone flustered at our improving it. I haven't read Ancient Egyptian funerary practices yet, so that's a must-do. I think we'll also be going more along the art path ... trying to locate images to illustrate the concepts and are also some of the best evidence we have. Okay, this give me a sense of things.

Personally, I was gearing up more on the languages path and fleshing out the details of the papyri, but that's fine, we can flesh out the flesh. Uuuummm. Sounds gruesome. Delightful. So, medicine is definitely the draw, here, huh? Can you tell me a big more about that? Are you considering a career in medicine? Any idea in what field? Nursing? Physician? Surgeon? Research? Physical Therapy? You definitely seem to be drawn toward trauma, so it looks like we'll be centering on that branch. Anatomy certainly goes hand-in-hand with that. As for "cultural", certainly "Role of Religion in Medicine" would fit with that.

So, am I on the right track, here? Is this starting to sound more your game?? Hi-storian (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: Sounds good! Once I have time, I'll go look into that nice flesh mummification. For Wikipedia. (I am strange, and I'm proud of it.) As for my future in the field of medicine, the closest I'm getting to it is clinical psychology. I don't have the manual dexterity for surgery or the quick mental reflexes for paramedics/nursing or the mental fortitude for experimentation. I do, however, have the patience to learn about it and look at all the required photographs, no matter how graphic in terms of gore. For science. If you want to go down the languages path, I can help with that, too (sometime after completing my mountains of ectowiki tasks). I'm rather fond of linguistics – you might say I have a soft spot for soft sciences.

P.S. I went and copied the archiving template from your talk page. I hope you don't mind. I also snagged a couple of nice little headers (with a few tweaks) from another user. Shhh, don't tell anyone. --Me, Myself & I (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Okaaaaaay ... you're not freaking out your parents and going Goth now, are you?? As for your ability (or the lack thereof) in the medical field, sounds like you gave it some consideration, but have the intellectual honesty to recognize your limitations. That's a good trait to have, and I believe I said quite a bit about it before, so I won't repeat myself, again. It sounds like you're more the type to have been a fan of Oddities ... human anatomy with a Steampunk edge. Am I right?

And I thought you had an interest in linguistics ... that's why I was surprised when you seemed to move away from that direction. Are you just trying to confuse me?? Watch it, when you try to confuse the confused you become confused, yourself! Confused, yet? Good! I'm glad we're clear on that.

I'm getting the sense that you may be more interested in how languages work rather than the languages themselves. Am I right on that? If so, you may consider looking into some brief exposure to Latin and then Greek. You may not be a fan of the grammatical aspects, in terms of the memorization, but you may be interested in how they work. Once you have French down, the steps of Latin then Greek are not quite as bad ... each language builds on the other. Basically, the complexities of the older languages were worked out, slowly, from language to language, until you get to English, which functions almost entirely on word order, and gender and conjugation have almost entirely disappeared from the language. I have a definite interest in the history of language, how it evolves and changes. Yes, I do have a copy of the OED at home. And just about every edition of Webster's printed in the 20th century. (19th century editions are a bit too expensive for me, plus you can get 'em free, online.) Et j'ai le Le Petit Robert et Le Petit Larousse, et je veux Le Grand Robert mais j'ai pas l'argent pour ça, encore. And, of course, I've got many other, more esoteric dictionaries, too. I quite like the American Heritage for its coverage of PIE. Anyhow ...

It's been a big news day in the States, and I've been a bit distracted from finishing this, so I'll cut it here, for now, and let you reply.

@High-storian: No, not goth. I don't think I have anything remotely Gothic about me besides that. Thanks for the recommendation. Though language (and yes, mainly how they work and how they change) interests me, medicine does too. I don't mean to confuse anyone, I'm just indecisive about nearly everything. I am simultaneously the confused and the confuser and the confusing, if there isn't too much confusion. So is that the plan? Research topics chosen from the outline and report back? --Me, Myself & I (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't think so on the goth ... I see you more the Oddities / Steampunk type. As for language, we're very much on the same page. I'm very fascinated with the theory and mechanics, the Etymology ... I've no problem with vocabulary, it's all tied together, anyway ... but the fine details on grammar are my biggest challenge. Part of it comes from the fact that English grammar is wrong. English does not work the way grammar books say it does. That's why nobody who has really studied the language has ever managed to write a grammar book! They all get frustrated with it and give up on the project, because they realize that English grammar doesn't work the way they think it does, then they don't know what to do with it! English is a mongrel language, and so many traces of its original grammar have been obliterated, that what's left is a unique creation all its own.

Anatomy is definitely another interest of mine. I'd love to be able to do a dissection. Buy my interests probably would not be the same as that of my classmates, if I were to take an anatomy class. I'm more interested in exploring the nature of the human body, rather than the location of each and every nerve and blood vessel. Now, if you're going to become a surgeon, that is something you've got to know and know well. You can't take the risk of making a cut and finding a nasty surprise. I'd be more interested in how elastic certain body tissues are. How dense or not. Is fat more compressible than mobile or more mobile than compressible? How things come together and come apart. If you inflate a heart, how big would it get before it bursts? Of course, if you tried a stunt like that you'd get your butt thrown out before you knew what happened ... but that's the kind of thing I'd like to explore. Personally, I find the Pelvis to be the most fascinating bone in the body, because of its complexity and non-intuitiveness. The pelvis only makes sense in the context of the muscles attached to it. And I would want to pull on various muscles to see how the legs move in response. So, yeah, I'd be a really unorthodox student, but I'd learn a lot, that's for sure. I just don't think they'd appreciate my method of learning. Sue me. LOL!

So, I take it though that you'd be interested in an anatomical museum or a Plastination exhibit? If so, then we're both really strange! But hey, it's life. What can I say?

As for the plan, yeah, that's sort of the plan ... but I want to take a closer look at the "research" part of it. That's actually the main part of what I want to show you. Now, yes, there's this great big Internet thing out there, and yes, there's this Google thing out there, and I'm sure you know all about that. So that, I don't think I need to teach anything on. But what I want to focus your attention on is researching with books. Yeah, those old-fashioned paper things. Hey!! Don't snarl at me! Yeah, don't roll your eyes at me, either! I have eyes behind my head, don't you know?? And yes, they can stretch out and go down that Ethernet cable and come out your DOCSIS modem, you got it??

But seriously, the first step is to take a few minutes and pull up your library's catalog and start searching. We're looking for Egyptian medicine, Mummification, and if you're curious, hieroglyphics. I'm not going to ask you to learn Egyptian, but I think you'd enjoy browsing through a book on it. I'm almost positive you can do the search online from home. You might even be able to order books for ILL online, too, if you have your library card registered to your email. You may have to ask about that. If you need help with this, just say so, I'd be glad to help. But I think you can probably manage it on your own. Let me know what you find. Most likely, I should be able to find the same titles, and I can point you to certain things here, and you can point what you found there, and we can be (literally) on the same page with each other. I'd really like to hear what titles you found and passed-over, and why, and which ones you chose, and why. I want to see how you approach this, so I know what you do well and need recognition on, and where you need help, and we can work on. Sound fair??

You've really impressed me a lot, you know ... I really believe you know a lot more than you think you do. I want to give you an opportunity to see that, for yourself! I think that's very important for you. Your lack of confidence comes, in large part, from being told repeatedly what you don't know. Well, you're still in school, and even after you finish college, there will be a lot you won't know. So I'd rather not focus on that, it won't help you. What you need to discover is what you do know. And I'll tell you right now with 0% chance of being wrong, what you know a ton more than you think you do. And I want to prove that to you!

And remember, there's nothing wrong about saying "I don't know." I believe we talked about that, and you've shown yourself to be good about that ... but I'll throw in the reminder ... because what I'm doing with you is not school, and you're not trying to pass a test. And it sounds like school work's starting to pile up, and you're getting in a "school" mode of thinking. And I ask that you don't bring that "school" thinking with me. Fair?? If so, 'nuff said, and go to it!

BTW it's been a heck of a night in Iowa, and it's still not over. Never seen a night like it. This is a big story in the States. Real big. Anyhow, take care and stay in touch, friend! Hi-storian (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: Noticed your page wasn't set-up for archiving. I found two errors: the first was you had all the code in an HTML comment. <!-- comment --> HTML comments are like <nowiki>comment</nowiki> tags, but HTML takes precedence over Wiki mark-up. So by having the Wiki code in an HTML comment, you disabled the Wiki code. Also, on the Template:WikibreakSwitch, you forgot to replace <status> with a status ... like OFF, ON, etc. Don't mind me. I'm an old programmer, so I'm pretty good at picking up on syntax errors. Hi-storian (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on working the article Mummy

Hey there! First of all, I do have replies to the section above, so please read that first. (Yes, I noticed you tend to overlook posts to an existing section after a new section is added ... so I'm getting to know your quirks and how to work around 'em.)

Okay, now that you read that, first ... after I wrote that, I did a quick review of the full article Mummy and its associated articles, and have a bunch of thoughts on it. It's also changed my thoughts about the library assignment. We're still going to do that, but you can put that on hold, for the moment. What I'd like you to do first is go through the article Mummy, and its sub-articles (not necessarily all the links, just the sub-articles), and the talk pages and write up a summary of what your opinion of your review is. Tell me about the structure of the article, the quality of the work, what needs to be done, etc. Are you happy with the structure, now? Would you change it, if so, how? What about the recent history of the page? As for "Hi-storian"'s comments on the article's talk page, pretend it's some other user you don't know. Come up with a plan of action, and perhaps an outline of how you would like this article set to look when it's done. Tell me as much as you can about everything you notice about the page ... what's good, what's bad, what should be changed, etc., etc. I think that should keep you busy for a little bit. If you have any questions, of course, please let me know, here. But I think you should be okay with it. I would like you to think through this project, take a broad view of the whole article as it sits now, and come up with some sort of plan of action. Don't limit yourself to just ancient Egypt. I'm not saying that you have to do the whole action plan ... we'll discuss that and come to some understanding, afterwards, but before you start actually working the article. But for the moment, say you were going to take on the whole article, and give me a report on that. Then we'll discuss it, okay?? Sound fair? I know you're kindda itching to do this, and now that I've had a good review myself, some of my own thoughts have changed since our last discussion. I hadn't really looked at it much beyond the Egypt section, so when I did my review, after our chat, that sortta changed my mind on a few things. I do want you to be in the driver's seat as much as possible, and I think there's a way we can do just that, without you having to do a lot more work than you expected with things you're not comfortable with. Fair? Have fun, and keep in touch! Hi-storian (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S.:(I always seem to have a P.S., don't I??) You may also want to take a look at other versions of the article, like fr:Momie and simple:Mummification. Again, not asking you to edit the French article, but looking it over and comparing it to the English may give you ideas that you might not have considered from the English, alone. The French may be more detailed, or less detailed, or detailed differently than the English. The Simple English Wikipedia seems to be a project started many years ago, and abandoned. It's only got 117,215 articles, compared to over 5 million on the regular English Wikipedia, and it seems to have stalled around 2013, but it may also give you something to think about. Hi-storian (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: Hey, I love books! I love the Internet too, but's they're not mutually exclusive. Starting on the mummy page would be terrific (though I'll probably be distracted by the other stuff on my watchlist...). Will it have to be a formal book report-like thing, or just a checklist?

Thanks for the heads-up: I might actually have missed the other message!

Good idea! I just starting making small edits to the Simple English wiki. I've noticed that some articles have very strange punctuation and spacing, and others are much too unsimple (well, they were copied directly from Eng. Wiki). I've always held off making my own article here (having no expertise and all). I'm also thinking of doing translations in the future, once I have the proficiency. But maybe I could start content contribution at Simple English instead... --Me, Myself & I (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey there! Great, I'm glad you have a clue what those old, dusty paper things are. You're right, there's a world for both. Just like radio didn't kill newspapers, and TV didn't kill radio, and YouTube hasn't killed TV. Rather, each new media takes a different place, replacing some of the old media's role, but also filling other roles, that the old media couldn't fill. Each has its own advantages. There may be some overlap, but they both also have a unique role to fill. Glad you see that. Let me tell you, during the .Com Bubble, there were a lot of grown-ups that couldn't understand what you do! As for the report, I think I sketched out the general idea of what I'm looking for. No, this is not a formal school report! But I am expecting more than just a couple words. Just sit down and throw out your thoughts on what you've found ... just as I do. As for the outline, you have an example of how I structured mine. Yours would be something similar, but reflecting what's unique about Mummy. And of course, there's no deadlines. I'll continue doing what I've been doing 'till you're ready. This is not school. But, I hope, it will help you with school.

As for Simple English, I just discovered it, accidentally, a few days ago. They really don't go out of their way to let people know it's there, do they?? I just posted my thoughts on the future of Simple on their main page ... I wonder what kind of response it'll get. It's something that I'd really like to contribute to, but as I said there, for my subject, I simply can't until they decide who they want to be. Anyhow, I think I've answered everything, and I'm trying to be short, for once. Any more questions, you know where to find me. Take care and have fun with Mummies!

Oh! Translations! I wanted to say, start just with reading French. Get comfortable with it. Then start translations from French to English. That's much easier than the other way around. Then, as you're more comfortable with the grammar and intricacies of French, try going the other way. It'll take time and practice. But if it's something your interested in and committed to, you'll get there. Just be patient with yourself. Hi-storian (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: (Why do I always have to have a P.S.??) You may want to put the watchlist aside for a moment and get to Mummy as soon as you can ... it looks like someone may be intending to do work on it ... stake your claim while you can!! Just trying to look out for you. Hi-storian (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

often cough on throat

I often have cough on my throat n because of that when I talk simetime it create problem to me. what to do? Is it because of cell of my body or i have defficiency of my WBC please reply as soon as possible....thanking you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikesh maurya (talk • contribs) 08:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nikesh maurya: Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, I think you may be in the wrong place. I'm not remotely qualified in any way to dispense medical advice. Of course, I must also caution you against soliciting healthcare advice over the Internet, as even medical professionals wouldn't know much about your specific situation and may be unable to help you. Seeing your general practitioner is always recommended. In the future, try posting a question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk for questions about topics not relating to Wikipedia, but please note that Wikipedia is not a suitable substitute professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. --Me, Myself & I (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Civility Page Edits

Hey Me, Myself and I,

Got your message about "caps, wkilink, c/e (still not preferable, please fix if you can))". Still not entirely familiar with the terminology yet, but if you point me in the right direction I'd be happy to take a look.

Thanks! --Blippincott (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Blippincott: Hello! Allow me to explain my edit summary. I use "caps" to mean "changed capitalization", "wkilink" is my mistyping of "wikilink", and "c/e" means "copyedit". I tried to rewrite the three sentences ("Everyone is welcome...Companies and organizations are also encouraged to celebrate Peace Day" to "Participation is open...to spread good will") to be more concise and to have a more encyclopedic tone, but it's still clunky, so I'd appreciate it if you or anyone else can make further improvements to the prose. If you'd like, you can see the Wikipedia:Edit summary legend page for more abbreviations used in edit summaries. Happy editing! Me, Myself & I (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: thank you for all your help! This page has gotten huge since it started, and any extra help is greatly appreciated. On a side note, was wondering if you knew of any other tools other than duplicator detector for checking references for the CopyVios tag? I've been chatting with Nikkimaria who recommended using Duplication Detector, and was wondering if there are any others that you might recommend for checking out. Thanks! --Blippincott (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Blippincott: I'm happy to help! I'm afraid the dup detector is the only tool I know of on Wikipedia. Perhaps people at the help desk will know more. Outside of Wikipedia, doing a quick Google search for specific phrases or using any one of the many free plagiarism checkers available online might be worth it. Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations recommends this for "text in various databases of published information that is not generally available via a search engine". I'll look into it further and see if I can come up with anything. In the meantime, you can continue talking to other editors and beavering away at your article. It's looking pretty good so far! Me, Myself & I (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: Sweet! Thank you, I'll checkout sunlight. Really appreciate the extra help. It's been a fun journey so far, and the cool thing is there is so much for this to expand into! Also thanks for the kind words, it's been a work in progress with many who have helped and contributed. If you come across anything good let me know. Your help is appreciated. Thanks!! --Blippincott (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Blippincott: Glad to hear it! I don't know if you've seen Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101, and the tools section in particular. This seems similar to the dup detector. (It's so nice of related essays to link to each other – it makes them so much easier to find.) Good luck on getting that copyvio tag removed! Me, Myself & I (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: now that's a nice tool! Think that one works a bit more effectively than Dup, just because it runs several different searches. Was already able to spot of a few things that were difficult to find before. Hopefully the most recent changes will help to get that copyvios tag removed soon. Thanks for your contribution and your guidance. Much appreciated!

--Blippincott (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

thanks for fixing my bad

Oh, hi! THANK YOU for fixing my external link in Organization for Transformative Works (Archive of Our Own) page. I only started editing Wikipedia five (5!) days ago, when I decided to take the exhoration to Boldly Go and just do it... there's so much to figure out, I decided just to jump is and learn as I go. I'll also do more research too. -- Frescadp (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Frescadp: No problem! The links in your welcome message are all good things to check out. You seem to be comfortable with wikimarkup already! I suppose you don't even need Help:CS1 or the cheatsheet. If you have any questions, the WP:Teahouse and WP:Help desk are always good resources (and if you just need basic pointers, you can ask me. I'm not all that experienced myself, though I have been editing for more than 5 days. For more advanced things, the other editors would be best). In the meantime, by all means be bold! That's what keeps Wikipedia running. Me, Myself & I (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S: You seem to have signed the heading by mistake! I've fixed it, if you don't mind. Happy editing!

Hmm... This is a test: I just wanted to reply to your reply and say thanks for being so funny and welcoming. I'd heard horror stories about how I get jumped in a dark alley if I dared to edit Wikipedia, especially being a woman. That's why I liked Wikipedia's invitation to be bold so much. (Also, Star Trek.) Anyway, I will certainly look at the cheatsheet and other guides--thanks for those.

Let's see if I can even manage to sign off properly... --FrescadpFrescadp (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Frescadp: Once again, no problem! I've heard those horror stories, but they're not coming true on my watch. (Personally, all of my interactions have been positive, though I certainly don't deny harassment on Wikipedia is a real problem.) Along with ignore all rules, be bold is my favourite rule, because it's so satisfying and attracts all sorts of useful contributions. (And yes, Star Trek.) Me, Myself & I (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. No need to reply if you don't want: I'll just assume you've read this. I've indented your reply per talk page custom. Also, when signing, you do not need to type in your username: the tildes do that for you. I wish you well in your future edits. Don't let the WikiVampires bite you!

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: Good morning! [Where I am, anyway, it's morning. I see you spell "favorite" with a "u", so perhaps it's afternoon where you are?)

Ah-ha, I see; it's the colons that indent. I am learning so much! I must learn more, more, more... so I can ignore the rules. :)

Today I am going to start to clean up the final paragraph of the "Organization for Transformative Works" page (the one you copy edited). The info is not entirely wrong, but it's entirely unsourced/uncited, and its tone is more negative than neutral.

What I'm wondering is [do you know], what's the etiquette for removing the old material? There's nobody to contact, since it's anonymous, so I feel like I could just delete it, once I've rewritten it---but should I leave a note on the Talk page before I do that? (If you don't know, just to be safe, I'll do that.)Thanks! Have a good [insert proper time of day]! Frescadp (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here:Um... never mind---I think I found the answer to my question at "Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual", which says: "the norm is to insert a template ("citation needed") into the article at the point of question, and then give other editors a chance to respond. Only after some time (at least a week, and with useful information, perhaps as long as a couple of months), should you move the information to a talk page." Sorry for cluttering up your talk, and I still hope you are having a nice morning/afternoon/evening... Ciao!Frescadp (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Frescadp: Sorry about the late reply – I suppose our time zones are incompatible. I was asleep at the time of your first message. And yes, that's probably right. If you were to remove any sizable chunk of information that is not blatant copyright infringement or patent nonsense, you would be best advised to start a talk page discussion after tagging to avoid content disputes. If a group of earnest editors trying their darnedest to find sources for something fail after a few months, then you can probably remove it as hopeless with consensus.

If you want to clutter up my talk page, go ahead! That's what archiving is for. The real problem is getting me too reply on time...Well, you have a nice morning/evening/afternoon as well! Me, Myself & I (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: No worries about timely replies. (I'm in Minnesota, USA, btw.) It's noon here right now, and I've just finished tweaking the Archive of Our Own section of Organization for Transformative_Works. Since the final uncited paragraph is not quite patent nonsense (just full of vague phrases such as "a large percentage"), I added solid information and citations in a separate paragraph and left a note on the Talk page. I am going to call my edit there done for now, and if no one speaks up, in a couple months or so, I will delete the final paragraph in that section.

I also deleted another unwieldy external link in the OTW page. But I left the external links in the list of "services and platforms" OTW provides (in the first section)---do you think that's OK? Or should they be moved to the end section "External Links"? (Or put in both places?)

May I ask, how did you know someone (me) was editing OTW so you knew to go check that page? Do you sign up to get notifications?

It sounds like you're busy, so no pressure--respond if/when you have time. :) My best to youFrescadp (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Frescadp: Hi again! Let me answer your questions in order.

I am leery of leaving the external links embedded like that. If you check featured or good articless on companies and organizations, they generally don't put external links for subsidiaries/affiliated groups in the text. Then again, they generally all have their own articles to link to. I was thinking of either including them in the external link section, or creating a special ref group for them. Then I got distracted.

It's really nothing special. You have one too: a Watchlist. By ticking "Watch this page" (next to "This is a minor edit" on the edit screen) or clicking on the little star next to "View history" at the top of the page, you have added the page to your watchlist. You can see diffs (example ), the page history, which user/IP changed it, when they changed it, and by how much the size changed as well as the edit summary they used. To mess around with it, go to your preferences (watchlist section). If you need more help, see Help:Watchlist. (I currently have over 2,000 pages on my watchlist because I flit from article to article.) Hope this helps! Me, Myself & I (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here:Sigh. So much to learn. I will move the external links to the external links section (probably tomorrow).

I just realize that I cited some poor sources in the AO3 section too. Trying to clean up that final unsourced paragraph, I found some good info, but it's on Tumblr. Aaargh. I will look for better sources.

THANK YOU for your kind patient help---truly, you are providing good guidance and encouragement to this newbie. Please tell me what else I am doing wrong, when you see it, if it's not too much bother.

I will start a watchlist myself...though I fear I will be starting an unbreakable habit. Considering how much bother this all is, it's funny how much fun it is too!

Another editor gave me a "cup of tea" on my talk page today for doing some little copy editing myself! (Like the kitten and cookie I see here on your talk page--how does one send those?) So I have now met two lovely editors in my first week: very cheering!

Onward! -Frescadp (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Frescadp: I'm glad you're enjoying it here! It's my pleasure to help. If you'd like, you can see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 435#Looking for guidelines on good references for a conversation about sourcing. As for the cookie and kitten, it's called WikiLove! Do you see a heart symbol next to the View history on the top of the page? Click on it and follow the instructions there. Happy editing! Don't lose yourself in the Wikipedihol!

(P.S. no need to ping me on my own talkpage – it shows up as a new message anyway. I think that'll save you some typing/copy+pasting Me, Myself & I (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW .....

Remember the lesson plan we started a while back?? Sorry we got off track with it. That med did take an awful toll on me, but now that's over with, it's time to dust things off and start again.

So ... do you remember what a primary source its?? I used a specific phrase over and over ... can you remember what it was? DON'T go cut and paste it, now! Try to remember and, in your own words, describe it best you can. I want to be sure you're clear on that point before we move on to the next.

Take care, and keep your chin up, you're doing quite well, you know! Hi-storian (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: (What if I cheat a little and look at it?) Okay, fine. No cheating. Pure memory.

I'm really running out of creative ways to state the basic definition, but it's a document, a photograph, any kind of source that is the originator of the information it reports, or reports original information. Certain types may overlap with secondary.

You said the distinction was more nuanced than I had considered: a "chain of attestation" can lead to primary sources, not just living in the time period/witnessing it in person. As long as there is a reliable, unbroken chain of attestation, government documents issued by people not necessarily directly involved in the proceedings they report on can be considered primary sources.

I'll leave it at this for now. Thanks! Me, Myself & I (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey there! How's it going? Did you see my suggestions on my page?? Just thought I'd mention it, in case you missed it.

As for primary sources, the definition I like to use is "a direct witness to a fact or event". The reason I use that definition will become clearer as I go through other sources. Any questions on my definition?? Hi-storian (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: Oh darn! See, that's what I get for not cheating.

I don't think I have any more questions. Do you think I'm ready to move on, or should we stay on this topic?

I have gone and popped over to your page, and I'm currently formulating a response to that. I have a few big tests coming up soon, so I might not get back to you about that for a rather long time. I managed to do some work this weekend because of the lunisolar new year. Sorry! Me, Myself & I (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem, just wanted to make sure you were aware of it. And that you're clear on everything. As for cheating, the only person you wind up cheating is yourself. Just wanted to get a refresher in on that before I launch into another essay. Hi-storian (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Sources

The main thing that distinguishes a secondary source from a primary is that while a primary is a direct witness to a fact or event, an secondary source interprets the facts and events. In other words, a primary source gives "just the facts, ma'm", devoid of any meaning. The Declaration of Independence simply records some resolutions of the Continental Congress on a certain date. Big, fat, hairy deal. So what?

A secondary source, on the other hand, uses the primary sources to tell a story. It weaves the pieces together and puts meaning to it. It puts the primary sources into a context, and explains how each fact or event relates to each other. Primary sources, by themselves, can be dull and boring. The value may not be initially apparent. Only when a collection of primary sources that all relate to the same subject are gathered, and the facts and events are put together in a logical order, and a narrative is created that links the primary sources together does a meaningful story emerge.

The Continental Congress did not convene to discuss independence. It was, in fact, the Second Continental Congress, and it convened on May 10, 1775 ... over a year before the declaration. It was a successor to the First Continental Congress of the fall of 1774. That first congress was convened in response to the Intolerable Acts. This congress adopted a petition to King George III, demanding the repeal of those acts. It was not without precedent. The Stamp Act Congress of 1765 made similar demands, and got a positive response. So the idea that this new congress might get a similar resolution of its complaint was not unreasonable. However, the general feeling was that this time, somehow, things were different. The congress, therefore, also resolved that if the King made no response, a second congress should be convened to consider further action. When their response failed to come, the second congress convened, just as the echos of the Shot heard round the world still rang in the ears of the delegates. With the Revolutionary War already begun, the delegates considered their next moves, and decided to formally establish the Continental Army and appointed George Washington as its Commander in Chief. A year later, it was clear that the war might go on indefinitely. While the original goal of the Continental Congresses was to assert the colonists' rights as British subjects, and to seek recognition of those rights, it had become clear that such recognition would not happen, and that Great Britain was fully committed to suppressing what it saw as a treasonous rebellion. On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress came to admit the obvious, and passed a resolution asserting the 13 colonies' claim of independence from the government of Great Britain. It was a simple resolution, only a few words long. Two days later, they adopted a much more extensive resolution that set forth to the world the grievances of the colonies, and asserting what they saw as basic human rights, including the right to establish a new government for themselves, as they saw fit. Having agreed to the wording of the resolution, a copy was ordered to be printed and distributed to the 13 colonies. The resolution was then ordered to be engrossed. A month later, the delegates signed the engrossed copy. The image of this engrossed copy has, in time, become an icon of the United States' independence. The date, boldly heading the document, July 4, 1776 has become engrained in the nation's collective memory as the birth date of the new nation. Technically speaking, it was not. It was one of many dates, any one of which could be taken as the start of independence. The one date that has the best claim is July 2, 1776 ... when the congress actually resolved for independence, but the power of the iconic document, adopted two days later, won out. Which is why most "Americans" don't know when their country was actually born!

So, this paragraph is an example of something that would pass as a secondary source. I haven't cited any of my primary sources, but that's something I certainly could do. The sources would be the journals of the various congresses, the official registers that record the actions taken by the congresses, day by day. I would also need to cite letters from witnesses of the Battle of Lexington, spreading the news of what happened that day, and perhaps the notifications of the Committee of safety that informed the 12 other colonies of the events in Massachusetts. I would also cite the acts of the British Parliament, both the acts complained of, and the act of repeal for the Stamp Act. That list of dates, quotes, and citations would contain all the facts in my paragraph, above. But it wouldn't be as interesting or informative, because the cold facts alone would all stand in isolation. You notice how I stated telling my story in 1776, then worked my way backwards to 1765. History often works that way. Events of the past take on new meaning, when subsequent events force us to re-interpret the past in a new light. The colonists had no intention to engage in war and declare independence in 1765. They just wanted to air their grievances, the only way they could, since they had no seat in Parliament. And they were heard, and the issue was resolved peacefully. In 1774, they had no reason to expect anything different, when another congress was held. The steps towards independence only became clear after the fact. At the time, it was the furthest thing from their minds. The actual events of the drafting, adopting and signing of the declaration took place over a few months, not a single day. And sometimes, a holiday can even be remembered on the wrong date, for whatever historical reasons. But the entire point of writing all of this is to give you a clear example of what a secondary source looks like, and what it does. It's more than "just the facts, m'am". It interprets the facts. It gives meaning to the facts.

The problem with secondary sources is that oftentimes, the facts can be open to multiple interpretations. There's a saying, "History is written by the victor." The example I give is a clear case of this. Had the United States lost, the interpretation would be entirely different. It'd be a story of a bunch of ingrateful rebellious ne'r do wells who dared to defy the will of their Sovereign and committed Treason by mounting an insurrection.

Certainly, that point of view was still held by the British in 1812, when they tried to re-take the colonies, by force. Of course, that failed, and it wasn't until WW I that US-UK relations became an unbreakable bond of friendship, with the past unpleasantries fully behind them.

So the point here is that the same facts can have multiple interpretations, depending not only on point of view, but also by the perspective of subsequent history. There are so many events in history that could have gone multiple ways. Imagine what would have happened if the USSR actually was behind the assassination of JFK? Would the Berlin Wall have come down? History often cannot be written until years, decades, or even centuries after the fact. The evidence is starting to emerge that Hitler did not commit suicide in Berlin, but rather, he died an old man in Argentina. We know what happened in Roswell. The government did cover it up. It was not a weather balloon. The decription of the debris was correct. But it was not some alien space craft. It was a U.S. spy balloon, intended to monitor Soviet efforts to develop their own atomic bomb. The "strange metal" was what we now call "mylar" ... a very strange and mysterious substance to someone who never saw silvery-coated plastic, before. Interestingly, the Wiki article says it was developed in the mid-50's. Rosewell was 1947. But then again, would you expect to have an accurate date for something developed by the military and was highly classified, at the time??

So my point here is that while primary sources are cut and dry, secondary sources can be troublesome. The very thing that makes secondary sources interesting and useful is also the very thing that could also make them highly misleading. And that property is interpretation.

Does all of this make sense, so far?? I know I've probably raised a ton of questions, and, of course, that's exactly what I'm working towards ... how do we evaluate these troublesome sources? So other than this obvious question that we're still working towards, any questions on the nature of a secondary source, and my examples, so far? As we keep going you'll start seeing the nuances I've been hinting at. And you'll also start seeing why I gave you that clear-cut definition of a primary source. We've got a few layers to build, before all the parts will start to make sense. But I want you to be clear on each of the parts, first, and the picture will start coming together as we go. Hi-storian (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: Hey, I popped over to your talk page and saw the lengthy discussion you had on there. My computer didn't like the size of it, so...I'm replying here. I don't totally understand the situation (did you try to create an article?), but for the future, perhaps you can consider starting with a draft instead? It would give you time to amass references and material, reducing the likelihood of having the rug being pulled out from under you, as you put it. In other news, most homework is done, will get to reading this soon. Me, Myself & I (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey there! Good to hear from you again. Yeah, I had a bit of a run-in with the Goddess of New Articles, aka the Wicked Witch of the West, but fear not! While I'm going to abandon the History of Medicine project, and Ancient Egyptian medicine along with it, (which both involve creating new articles), I'll stick with Egyptian medical papyri which was what I was concentrating on, at the moment, anyway. After that, I'll be putting Wikipedia away for a few more years. I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to complete our lessons before then. While there are more helpful and friendly users here than there was before, I'm afraid you're still the minority. But you've become a bit of a friend, and I don't walk away from friends without good cause, so fear not. I'm just going to put more of my efforts on projects that appreciate my contributions without the nonsense. Open Library needs a lot of work and has none of the hassle. Hi-storian (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A starship… for you!

	For helping me to Boldy Go
	Thank you! Frescadp (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Frescadp: Hey! Sorry for the late response, but thank you! (And yes, I think all of us have spent too many of our hours "fixing these tiny little things". If you'd like, CS1 maintenance categories are full of pages with those "tiny little things". Please help.) Me, Myself & I (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

A small complement

Happened to read your profile page. Very nicely written. Regards, --Prof TPMS (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with Ecological Art

Thank you for your help with the Ecological art page. It is very much appreciated! Netherzone (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Netherzone! I'm glad to be of help. Me, Myself & I (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Mobile Tower Fraud

Thanks for improvement of article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Tower_Fraud The word "Mobile Tower Fraud" is used instead of "mobile tower fraud" because my intention was give emphasis on subject. Mobile Tower Fraud is a new kind of Mass Marketing Frauds. I am not grammar expert. What do you suggest ? regards, Harishk.its (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Harish

@Harishk.its: Thanks for the reply. The Manual of Style advises against using capitals for emphasis, though that's referring to using all caps. But as far as I know, capitalizing the first letter for emphasis is uncommon as well. If the common usage is "mobile tower fraud" (lowercase), then the article should reflect that. I could move the page for you if you'd like, or you can do it yourself. Me, Myself & I (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be so kind if you do it for me. Please do the improvement. Harishk.its (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reagrds Harish