User talk:Kothog

Welcome!

Hello, Kothog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Alai 07:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess. I'll try not to make a pest of myself. :) Kothog 08:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another welcome

Hi Kothog, I saw your edits to Carcross area articles, good work. Nice to see another Yukoner here (at least I think you are, judging by your edits). Luigizanasi 07:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance Requested

I am in a bit of a quandry. A town with which I am intimately familiar is so small there is virtually no authoritative, published information about it--anywhere. Tourism brochures aside, I do have direct (and sole) access to primary historical materials that no one else does such as period photographs, mining recorder records, documents relating to the area, and direct personal knowledge, having lived there for many years. I want to share this information with Wikipedia, but after reading the "No original research" and "Verifiability" policies, I've come to realise that perhaps I shouldn't be contributing this information directly to the Wikipedia: on the other hand, as a storehouse of knowledge and as the busiest and arguably one of the most important sites people visit to learn about miscellaneous topics, the Wikipedia serves an extremely important role, and I sincerely wish to contribute accurately and neutrally, facts about this place for the enjoyment and edification of Wikipedians.

Therein lies my quandry: there is no chance at all that any of this information will ever be published, let alone published in a reputable verifiable source.

Should I be going elsewhere? Or are only controversial topics, or challenged topics the ones where these policies are strictly enforced? For example, I have intimate knowledge of the natural and recent history of the area. For the natural history, all someone has to do is walk around the town. For other aspects of its history, verifying my feeble attempts at NPOV will be much more difficult.

So should I contribute more detail to the article, or should I not bother? Should I assume that the policies are lax until someone comes along and makes an issue out of it? So many others appear to, but as you can tell by my writing this, I like to (attempt, at least, to) hold myself to a higher standard.

Try looking to wikisource a Wikimedia project for original source material. This will probably suit your requirements better. --pgk^(talk) 08:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. To me, the main issue is not putting up crackpot theories and verifying controversial issues, which are unlikely to affect articles about the Carcross area. Wikipedia:No original research does state:

"In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources".

If you have original documents & photos, put them up and refer to them if needed. See Chetwynd, British Columbia on how far you can go on a small town. Have fun. Luigizanasi 17:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloop

First, thank you for your help with the article about the Bloop. Second, I just left a question on the article's talk page that I'm hoping you'd answer. Chrisrus (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, of course. I apologise for not being completely clear. I answered the question on the Bloop page itself but the quote I was referring to is, "Fox's hunch is that the sound nicknamed Bloop is the [sic] most likely to come from some sort of animal, because its signature is a rapid variation in frequency similar to that of sounds known to be made by marine beasts." This shows clearly Dr. Fox thinks it is biological in origin, and since this is essentially direct-from-the-horse's mouth (and is something which can be directly verified from the source) the primary hypothesis of the Skeptoid article (which I was trying to eliminate as a useful source in the article) appears to be plain wrong. Kothog (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like a copy of the e-mail exchange I had with Phil Lobel? I was polite, but in essense I blamed problems of that article on him and asked him to clarify his statement somewhere citable. Chrisrus (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for your contributions to the article Bloop! Chrisrus (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for your contribution to the article Bloop! Chrisrus (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]