User talk:V-Man737/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Alla Pavlova[edit]

Nice editing + Ceoil 23:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Tanx! V-Man737 23:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ach, it did need a bit of toning down, to be fair. + Ceoil 23:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The main reason I started into that article is because I had barely read something about her, and noticed it in the recent changes page as lacking a reference. I'm pretty sure what I read was from Fox News, but after scouring that place for almost an hour and finding absolutely nothing I gave up. ;_; It's a hard-knock life for us. V-Man737 23:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Misc talk desk[edit]

What did you mean with this ([1]) diff? --Dweller 14:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I always have the silliest trouble placing responses that are buried. Someone had mentioned children putting beans in their ears eariler in that discussion, and I was under the impression that the nose is a more common orifice of choice for such explorations. V-Man737 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Hello, V-Man737, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --Dweller 14:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Aww tank yew, tank yeww. You awe so vewwy nice. I'd like to take dis moment to accept my welcome by de welcoming committee by acknowledging all de liddle peeple! Hello down dere, I see youns! I have to go edit warring now. I wuv you awe! 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)~


You keep saying "sauce" and linking to some WP press page. Maybe you mean WP:RS or WP:CITE? --frothT C 08:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I suppose it helps to actually look at what I'm linking... ;_; sauce... V-Man737 09:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the tip. I'm not going to ridicule your suggestion at all :) - it's got to be worth a try. Neat or diluted? --Richardrj talk email 13:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my experience, things like porcelain are nearly immune to sodium hypochloride... I'm not sure if that extends to the type of enamel your bathtub may have, though. Also, you might want to take care that you don't let the bleach make contact with the metal parts of your drain for too long without rinsing well. What always got me is that stuff like Drano has high concentrations of sodium hypochloride, but also has some anti-corrosives mixed in with it. Heck, Drano might be your best bet for that. WTF am I saying! IANAHO (I am not a homeowner)! Attempt at your own risk. But that's my suggestion and I'm sticking with it. ^_^ V-Man737 14:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh heh. Thanks for the help - I'll let you know how I get on :) --Richardrj talk email 14:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Terri Schiavo[edit]

You know, if you don't understand the issue, don't understand the background, don't understand the history, and, most importantly, don't understand Wikipedia policies about little things like external links and reliable sources, maybe you ought not descend from Mount Olympus to dispense advice -- especially given how little actual experience of Wikipedia (238 edits total) that you have. --Calton | Talk 14:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

^_^ I was thinking more like Mount Timpanogos, but if it means that much to you, I suggest you get the attention of some admins. I admit my experience in Wikipedia is quite limited, but I at least understand that in order for it to function well, people contributing need to make a healthy effort to respect each other. That was all the advice I impetuously meant, and I certainly didn't mean it as an insult. Oh yeah, and the wikibreak part! That's what that article suggests for situations like this, I was merely reiterating. Anyway, I'mma get my edits on so I can catch up with you. Have fun! V-Man737 14:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I really shouldn't try to contribute to important articles like this one until I have as much experience as he does.
Try reading what I actually wrote instead of embarking on passive-aggressive pouting. At no point do I say or imply you're not allowed or shouldn't contribute "until [you] have as much experience as" I do. Instead, I say the common-sense notion that you should understand the issue, background, history and/or basic policies BEFORE attempting to pass judgment on something. Is that a problem?
people contributing need to make a healthy effort to respect each other
The rule is "assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Gordon Watts has a couple of years of evidence to the contrary. If you want a condensed version of everything wrong with him, all in one place, read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts. Now multiply that by 44 talk pages and a few dozen different issues and you'll see why I have good reason not to have the slightest respect for him. --Calton | Talk 14:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, I'm not pouting. (I'm not, I'm not, I'm not!!) As for contributing to the issue, I actually did look at it, the background, and the history, and expressed my opinion. There certainly ought not to be a problem with that. I'm sorry if my intruding on your conversation was insulting, I figured that in Wikipedia people can make input wherever they want.
I agree that you ought to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, that's not what I was talking about. I used the word "respect." While you don't have to assume good faith with everybody, you really do have to respect them. Using condescending terminology or turning a discussion toward a more personal bent shows a sad lack of respect. I encourage you to make an effort to improve your respect towards others, even if (especially if) they are stepping on your toes.
I wonder whether you would have bitten me if my opinion had been on your side? At any rate, would it make you feel better if I suddenly started agreeing with everything you said? Or do you thrive for arguments? I get the general impression that the latter is more accurate. You'll need to find strife elsewhere, my friend. I'm not a quarreler.
On a lighter note: "Ever notice how difficult it is to change yourself? That's why it's even more difficult to change others." V-Man737 01:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder whether you would have bitten me if my opinion had been on your side? Someone saying "The Sun rises in the east" requires no comment; someone saying "The Sun is a giant ball of lemon-flavored Jello" does. It's not a question of "agreement", as you spin it, as it is of non-nonsense.
So you're saying that you bit me because I wasn't making sense?
While you don't have to assume good faith with everybody, you really do have to respect them Not on this planet, the one that's orbiting a yellow sun and not a giant ball of lemon-flavored Jello. I don't respect the dishonest, the incompetent, and the fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that, since no one else does. --Calton | Talk 02:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was actually under the impression that Wikipedia (of course not the whole planet) is built on priniples of mutual respect. I think the main problem you have is that you are quick to label people as "dishonest, incompetent, or fanatical." I'm willing to bet you'd have a much more fun time with life if you were to suddenly stop looking at others as being less than you. Seriously, chill out! This isn't an argument game, and you're not going to "win" by stepping on other people's necks. I can't imagine why you can't imagine why I'd have a problem with a lack of respect. Respect is a wonderful thing that makes everyone feel nice. I'm quite sure you'd have a problem with people not respecting you. Oh, and I'm serious about that cup of tea. *holds up teapot* eh? V-Man737 03:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

the main problem you have is that you are quick to label people as "dishonest, incompetent, or fanatical.". No, I only label those who are, in fact, dishonest, incompetent, or fanatical as such. One wonders how you know the speed of my judgments, you only being here since September and all -- especially since the one example you are actually familiar with, given the hints and direct links I've given you, have not the slightest hint of snap judgment about them.
...if you were to suddenly stop looking at others as being less than you. Stow the paperback psychologizing and projection, please, which would be offensive even if you WERE a professional psychologist, which I'm willing to bet you're not.
I can't imagine why you can't imagine why I'd have a problem with a lack of respect. Because it's an attitude untethered from the real world, not mention it making the category error of assuming that the dishonest, incompetent, or fanatical can even CONCEIVE of the concept of respecting anything outside their narrow little worlds. In other words, using "mutual" is an immediate non-starter.
I'm quite sure you'd have a problem with people not respecting you. Been there, done that. Would you like the list, most of whom have self-destructed (in Wikipedia terms, at least)? Maybe you can deal with flood of spam and nonsense I get from the worst of the bunch. --Calton | Talk 08:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry you get a flood of spam and nonsense. I wager I probably could deal with it, but am grateful that I don't have to. As far as respect being untethered from the real world, I'd say that's an attribute that Wikipedia prides itself on. Here's a place you can go that is different from the rest of the world, even from the rest of the internet, where people respect each other for practically no reason at all. Isn't it great!
By using the term "mutual," I was implying an initial assumption of good faith: Sure, the person might be dishonest, but if you have no proof of that at the first, you really have no reason to assume that the respect you give them is not mutual. Also, I'd say dishonest people are very capable of respect(if only on the surface), as are incompetent people, and even fanatical people sometimes. I've met a lot of each!
I apologize for psychologizing you, I hope it didn't hurt too much. Let me know if there's anything else about me I can fix. V-Man737 09:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Yes, I think you're right. I was taking my definition that "supernatural" cannot be "real" from a previous version of the supernatural page, which said that supernatural things "are not observable in nature," which is the same as saying that they don't exist, since if they were observable, they would be part of nature. As of now, it says "are not subject to normal natural laws", which of course leaves open the possibility that they are subject to abnormal natural laws, lol. I think that page is screwed, but we might as well not mess up the Ghost article because of it (: Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Google searches[edit]

Great work with the google search answers to RD questions! And on another note, are you a fellow Vancouverite? Anchoress 04:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I was copying your style! I had no idea that Google is so useful until I saw you implementing it on the RD. I'd love to be a Vancouverite, having visited before, but to console myself despite that shortcoming, I'm from the equally beautiful city of Orem. V-Man737 05:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Aawwww... :blushes: It's great to see more answerers using google; it's like giving people a fishing lesson rather than a fish, IMO. The more the merrier! I am not sure why I thought you were from Van... maybe because there's someone else fairly new to the RD (as a large-volume poster, anyway) who is, or maybe it has to do with some of your answers. Anyways, have a good night, and happy editing! Anchoress 05:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
<not>Could be my meatpuppet.</not> And I suppose if you took the hyphen out of my username and stuck "couver" in it, you'd get Vmancouver737. :-P Vmancouver737 05:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the compliment regarding Gordon Lish. I do hope we/others can convince user:Lishian not to take major edits too personally - I'd prefer the article not turn into a revert battleground...--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, wow. For what you'd done for it I was sure the other contributors would be grateful and look up to you, you know, the way people do on TV, with shiney eyes and everything. And major props for going back through rather than just re-reverting, I certainly would have been tempted to get some 3RR on if all my hard work had been undone just like that. V-Man737 03:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Troll food[edit]

Regarding Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#.50_BMG_to_the_head, please do not feed the trolls. See WP:DNFTT for more info. Friday (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware any trolls took part in that discussion; was my food-dropping done in my first remark there, or my second (or both >.< )? For the record, I feel I was genuinely answering the OP's question in good faith, and honestly am not aware of any trolls my remarks may have fed. V-Man737 17:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a judgment call. FWIW, there's discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Trolling:_remove.2C_ignore.2C_or_play_it_down.3F. Friday (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the beltway guy used a .223- about as far from .50 BMG as you can imagine, for a rifle cartridge. This is a good reason we should refrain from idle chatter and guesswork- it's easy to be factually incorrect when we give spitball answers. In my opinion, that thread contained too much juvenile sensationalism, and I think we should keep that sort of thing off the desk. Friday (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You got it. I wonder where that rumor came from though...? V-Man737 01:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for being understanding. Which rumor is that? People are saying he used a .50 BMG? That cartridge is unfortunately maligned, in my opinion. Friday (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, a friend of mine (First red flag, IMO) mentioned that a 50-cal gun had been used in a shooting, and, thinking of its use in sniping, I asked if it was the DC sniper. He immediately affirmed. Now that I think about it, a 50-cal sniper rifle being used to kill people would be monstrously horrible, and would last on the news a lot longer than the criminal in question. Hah, I'd better go fish my common sense out of the garbage can. V-Man737 02:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
".50 caliber" can mean many things other than .50 BMG, for what it's worth. In my experience, guns are one of those things where a lot of common ideas are false. Urban legends abound. I blame the movies, personally. Friday (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, movies suck when they do that. V-Man737 03:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: refdesk "Mercury-in-glass thermometer"[edit]

I think you're looking for "In all seriousness". :) --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hah! It's turning pretty late in the day, and my fingers didn't want to work. I gave up and just saved it, lol. I'll remember seriousness from now on. ;-) V-Man737 05:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your contributions to ghost, and that I think it noble that you've acceeded your opinion for a consensus regarding Oxford spelling. Not a lot of Wikipedians have that kind of gumption, despite the "spirit" of the guidelines that are here. I wish more Wikipedians were like you. ^_^ V-Man737 11:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks man! I believe in consensus and it was only the one word that I didn't like the British spelling of. I'm not a conformist, but I don't see any reason to be petty either : ) Ghosts, from my understanding, are enormously popular in England, more so than here in the U.S., so I figured why not? Plus, if you set aside the Native American concepts of ghosts (which are in many ways different from European notions), Britian has a lot more history to draw from than the U.S. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 19:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In remembance of a great man[edit]

In remembance of a great man, let's spend some of our free time serving the common good by working on a great resource of free learning, Wikipedia. Today, give more time than you normally would, helping do the work that needs to be done to keep this project on track. Drop by the project page Wikipedia:Martin Luther King Day of Service and do what you can. ike9898 04:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay for black people! V-Man737 04:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a dream... that one day people will stop vandalism and article creation. Ah well, a man can dream! Tonywalton  | Talk 13:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
We will be able to speed up that day when all Wikipedians, deletionists and inclusionists, admins and anons, bureaucrats and editors, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of that old Wikipedia spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank Jimbo Wales, we are free at last!" V-Man737 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Christ Figure[edit]

Just wanted to say great job finding sources for Christ figure. Added some, came up blank on many others. Again, great job!Sir Isaac Lime 06:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It was good of you to point out; searching Google for "Spock Christ" was thoroughly entertaining. V-Man737 07:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusions[edit]

Thanks for your assistance at improving this article. I am happy to provide any of the reference material cited therein if and when you choose to continue on the subject, and hopefully you will continue. This subject material is similar to other religious issues—there is much emotion and consequential contentious behavior. The remedy for an encyclopedic entry is reliance on reputable and verifiable sources that present objective information. This particular subject is extraordinarily serious because it involves life and death medical decisions. Hence the need for an even higher standard of seeking sources of information with no history of hostility toward one view or another. Again, thanks for your assistance. Marvin Shilmer 14:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I came across the article while browsing RfCs, and was rather intimidated by the, uh, passion on the talk page. So I looked at the article itself to see what I could see, and what I saw was an opportunity to flex my grammatical muscles. ;-) I didn't get into the semantics, really... V-Man737 16:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, whenever a religious subject is addressed, invariably passion will stir; it is unavoidable. I suppose without passion there’d be no religion. But there is passion, and there is religion, too. This passion is usually manifest as liberal, moderate or extremism. On a religious subject, all these perspectives deserve and need an objective presentation because they are all part of any religious community. But, in the end, reputable, objective and verifiable information should take precedent in any encyclopedic entry, regardless of the subject. I invite that you continue reviewing the article. Marvin Shilmer 17:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Donnie Darko[edit]

Yes, yes, Perhaps i should put it on myspace :P - User:

Yeah, mostly I think so because Myspace is, to me, on the opposite end of the spectrum of "opinion expression" from Wikipedia. Another thing you might try would be to make a user name for yourself, and you could put your opinions on your user page. User accounts here are useful for a million reasons, just read the articles and see for yourself! V-Man737 21:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Dea ex machina" quote was supported by the closed captioning. It also makes sense in the context of the scene where it is uttered, where Donnie is looking at Roberta Sparrow and her being in the middle of the road affecting the series of events that follow ("dea ex machina" = "goddess in the machine"). ArnoGourdol 09:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that does make sense. But until it has a source, it will only count as original research. Can you find any sources for it? V-Man737 03:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Doris Stokes[edit]

Hmmm, what's wrong with it? The sources? It seems to cover both sides, that is, it talks about controversy. Doesn't it cover something important? What exactly do you think is so terrible? If there were negative comments on the Randi forums, well, what do you expect on Randi forums? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talkcontribs) 02:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Heh. I'm not sure myself... I guess the main thing about requests for comment is that people want others to comment on what is being discussed; I don't really have much to say, but I thought you'd be interested in it. V-Man737 02:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your POTY vote[edit]

Hi, thanks for your vote. To get a correct diff, you have to edit your home talk page here on Wikepedai while logged in as yourself. You've done the edit while not logged in (ie as which means there's no proof yet that you and the person who voted are one and the same. Could you please correct your vote? If I can do anything to help, please ask. --MichaelMaggs 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that better? Should I fix my vote myself? V-Man737 20:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the diff for you and your vote will be counted now. You can remove that information from your user page if you'd like. — coelacan talk — 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Haunted locations[edit]

I thought I'd put this here rathert than clog up the debate there.

Ghosts, and their haunts, don't have to be reliable, just reported. It's not for wikipedia to prove or disprove ghosts; WP just says what's going on and the state of the debate. This is why I'm cocncerned about the list - even an unreliable report will be allowed, as long as it says it's an unreliable report. This extra material would easily add to the list. Totnesmartin 13:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You are precisely correct. Your concern will be alleviated, however, upon learning that I and several others are gearing up to examine and exclude unreliable reports. Anything satisfying WP:RS will be accepted, not as conclusive evidence one way or another, but as a source. Things like fansites have been left for the time being, but as we go through them, we may find that they are unreliable and/or biased, and will take them out. What I hope to find eventually in the article is a comprehensive list of places all around the globe that have been reliably reported as "haunted by ghosts or another anomalous phenomenon." obviously the list will eventually be very long. That's fine. Because of the length, each entry should be concise. Usually people visiting the list will be doing so with the intention of finding the nearest haunted location to where they live; that is a very good reason for length. Particularly notable locations should have their own articles as well. V-Man737 00:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not be rude on Talk Pages[edit]

I've seen your sarcastic and malicious comments to people not violating any rules on Talk Pages and you should cut back on that. Just because you can hide behind your computer, you should still treat others how you would like to be treated. --Gunmetal2k4 04:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to post a specific example of where I've been rude on talk pages? I try my very best no to be rude, and if I have, I'd like to address the issue as quickly as possible. Also, it is usually best to sign your signature using four tildes, rather than putting a user name in the place where your IP address would go.[2] V-Man737 05:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that, I was going to sign my signature with the tildes when I realized I wasnt logged in and wanted to make it quick so I signed it like that. I realize that my message came out a little rude (use of malicious) but I just thought you were being a little too sarcastic here• --Gunmetal2k4 05:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad no one's impersonating you, that sometimes happens.
I guess my words in that section could seem sarcastic, but I always hope my words are assumed to be in good faith. I sincerely mean everything I posted there - I truly think Orthologist's actions against the February 1 vandalism were brave, and that those of us who try to make constructive edits are appreciative of such defense. People like us, I truly think, are the "protection" of articles when Admins aren't actually putting them under protection.
In the future, I'll try to make my words less subject to misunderstanding. Thanks for pointing it out to me. As for "hiding behind a computer," I actually feel that being nearly faceless while communicating over the internet is a terrible reason to be rude to others; rather, it would be a good motivation to be polite, so that if you ever do meet someone from the internet in real life, there wouldn't be any reason to doubt each others' sincerity. V-Man737 06:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the comment you left on the Ghost Talk Page, I have to say I didn't find it to be sarcastic. It was absolutely good-natured and by no means rude. After all, it was clear that you had good intentions. Thanks, anyway, that you chose to clarify this, and thanks again about the comment on vandalism; of course, everybody is doing the best they can, and I can't see why appreciating this can be deemed as sarcastic.--Orthologist 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)



What did you do? What does the {{clear}} thing mean??? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's just my browser, but when I looked at your talk page, the intro stuff was intermixed with the actual talk. The "clear" template tells whatever browser is looking at the page to go to the bottom of the first bit of stuff before displaying more. I'm not sure if that's what you were seeing on your end of things, but it looks better on my browser! ^_^ V-Man737 06:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback[edit]

Hey, thanks for the feedback on the Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church. I admit I've been strong and frustrated in my tone, but as I just pointed out there, the one portraying the innocent party has been a root cause of the edit war and frustration. It's interesting that I initiated the mediation between the three, but then was sucked into the frustration because the three of them were not following wikipedia policy. I have to learn how that happened so it doesn't happen again. But really, thanks for the calm and unbiased contribution. --Maniwar (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for your willingness to cooperate to form a consensus! It's definitely a breath of fresh air compared to the way certain other articles are going... V-Man737 00:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


I've replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultramaterialism. I think you just found the wrong article to compare it to. — coelacan talk — 07:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, the comprison was compelled in the {prod} tag that was first there; (searching through history) here is the diff. I'll change my merge proposal accordingly. Thanks for the heads up! V-Man737 07:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Hey V-Man, you should probably use four tildes (~~~~) to sign when you make comments on talk pages and AfDs. Silly.

Oh! Thanks for reminding me. V-Man737 09:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Usually, acquainting oneself with Wikipedia's modus operandi will explain the reasons for certain actions that sometimes one could take offense from. First and foremost I would recommend you read WP:OWN, which explains why your frustration in having "your" article being modified is unnecessary. Next would be the lengthy pages linked around WP:FIVE, regarding rules and conventions. WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE are all very important ones that can help you circumvent your troubles. When you have read and are familiar with those, you will be able to use them to contribute to Wikipedia unhindered. V-Man737 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

hi v-man., the following is my response to your various points. thankyou for welcoming me to the site and in offerring to help . 14:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind my truncating the conversation for the sake of brevity. V-Man737 03:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

...i do not own the article or any of the other information which has been collected from masny other peoples lifetimes work and in respone to the other comments on wikpedia rules from yesterday they are all correctly referenced and sourced.

I understand you don't completely feel that you "own" the article; I have yet to find anyone who truly does. However, this can be the general misunderstanding that occurs when applying terms like "my" and "mine" to contributions that you submit to the article. The way Wikipedia works in this aspect is that you submit some contributions with the understanding that
  1. It might be completely deleted or reverted;
  2. It might be edited, reworded, or changed in some way (sometimes beaten to a pulp in such a way that it no longer resembles what you originally contributed);
  3. It might be left standing where it is.

...if you or any one else wants to discuss any way of making the article neutral i would be happy to do so . my difficulty as you can see if you`ve read the article itself , is that in order to put forward all of the source matereal available , as i have done , one has to start somewhere .

You are absolutely right. The real problem with what happened, in my opinion, is that you had so much source material and pushed it forward so hard that other editors had red flags go up. Usually, contributing that much source material at once is in the form of spam. In addition, the source material needs to be reviewed by the community and gain a consensus as to its relevance and neutrality.

...i would have liked an actual discussion based on the issues involved which the other two were ignoble enough not to grant me .

I find the other editors you've interacted with pefectly sound in reasoning and nobility. Perhaps the reason for a lack of ensuing conversation was (if you'll excuse my saying it) the wordiness of your conversation. You seem to have a lot to say, and no way to condense it all. This can be a source of frustration between editors just as much as any language barrier could pose. My recommendation to you would be to make your discussion edits concise and to-the-point. You will find that starting small in terms of words will get you far here. (I believe the proverb says, "He who watches and listens learns more than he who speaks and acts." *grumble grumble Wikiquote grumble*)
Another big problem that I perceived with the situation is that you seem very devoted to the cause of what you are editing. That is how I started, too, and quickly found out that when a person has a conflict of interest, it is best to simply avoid the subject that is close to the editor; otherwise people may accuse you (whether correct or not) of POV edits. It can indeed be frustrating to watch a subject that you love undergo (possibly incorrect) changes; however, my suggestion would be to step back, let the article do its thing for a while, and assume that the editors involved in its current progress are motivated by the good of society, rather than playing the WP:VANDAL card (in fact, the page I just linked is very useful in determining when to refer to a particular edit as vandalism, or something different, such as simply incorrect).

...that the present few lines which areill concieved and impotent on the subject od clairsentience still stand while this much more complete and thorough article stands in the wings is nadness , and much as i said yesterday , it is the dull minds who sent gallileo to his jail who are in charge it would seem .'

If your contributions are truly legitimate, they will eventually find their way into that article. What I recommend to you is to wait for a while, then add to the article one of the sources you've gathered, to see if it passes a community consensus regarding its value and neutrality. If you have concerns about the neutrality of the editors involved in that page, you can invite others to give input by posting it up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology#Physical science.

...if , on the other hand you want to help me tighten up the article so that it passes all of the wikpedia guidlines , i will be happy to work with you...

Sure! Put it in my user space. Just click on User:V-Man737/Clairsentience and copy what you've got, and I'll go over it and see what I can do. We'll make a Wikipedian out of you yet! V-Man737 03:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

input sought[edit]

In a message to several recent editors of Schiavo-related pages, I write that: Input is sought here: Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Edit_War_between_me_and_User:Calton.

--GordonWatts 15:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My advice to you would be to focus your efforts in areas of Wikipedia where 1) Calton is not; and 2) where you aren't personally involved in the subject. Other than that, I don't have much opinion to express. But thanks for asking! V-Man737 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thx - duly noted, but these are not always possible: I am expert in many areas -and Calton is like Sabre Faire (spelling?) - he is EVERYWHERE...--GordonWatts 11:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Savoir-faire? Look on the bright side, Calton doesn't steal your cheese. V-Man737 01:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Savoir-faire? Yes, that's the one. Thx!--GordonWatts 08:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement[edit]

On the Dream article, I just picked up a bunch of books today so we should see some new content and more organization coming in the current days. LilDice 02:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedian's dream! ^____^ V-Man737 02:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:FindX.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:FindX.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah! Thanks for reminding me. V-Man737 02:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)