User talk:Ihaveabutt

Hello, Ihaveabutt! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 17:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

February 2009

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in Talk:Danny Casolaro, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My WIKI Sins and Mistakes

I don't get involved in wiki much, but I recently saw a page about a writer(?) (Danny Cosolaro) who, (it happens) did die, and the wiki claims also his family and Doctors had doubts about the investigation, the cause of death. The investigations reported suicide but family suspected murder or foul play. No problem.

When I saw in the article a quote from David Corn, it seemed to emphasize one explanation over another (murder of suicide), without giving evidence or, and the quotes are below, so you can judge. Suddenly I see replies, that have attack words, like a FLAME war.

Notice that I am not alone in my view (that Corn rejects murder more than he does suicide). See for yourself in the first sentence below.

Wiki Quote (sentence preceding the Corn Quote):

However, no conclusive evidence of murder has been found.

Full Corn quote (as given on wiki):

However, no conclusive evidence of murder has been found David Corn of The Nation wrote, "Anomalies do not add up to a conclusive case for murder...; [the] suicide explanation is unsatisfying but not wholly implausible; the possibility of murder is intriguing but the evidence to date is not overwhelming."

Whoever originated the original page interpreted (or summarized) Corn to be discounting murder more energetically than he does suicide. Corn's can say whatever he wants - that's fine; my question is with including his quote in an encyclopedia that tries to be balanced.

This is where things get weird.

On that discussion page, another wikipedia commentator ("Dixie", below) - remarkably says my comments were vile (well, I admit he said mean "self-interested"). He explains to me that the problems is that I misunderstand, and based on Dixie's expertise, Corn REALLY "means" this:

Dixie Brown Quote:

Corn merely says nothing is conclusive.

Oh, really? Check again the first sentence above. Is that what it says? Or, does it emphasize murder. We (me and that writer) might be wrong, but we are not alone, and I don't see you requesting to revise that sentence.

Read Dixie Brown's indictment of me, below. I don't mind that he criticizes my selfishness, for my girlfriend does so daily, and he is right. But what scares me is that he is threatening to block me form wiki!! Horrors!! How will I get through the day?

I love Dixie's eloquent frantic words, his specialized super-wiki lingo, and his discourse on what he calls "grammar" and "syntax" ... (huh!?).

But the best part of Dixie Brown's commentary is his WARM, FRIENDLY, ELEGANT reminder that there are help buttons at the top of the page. Wow, a grizzled veteran!! Dixie, is there a way to use fancy fonts!?

The world many diverse people, from alternative radio callers that make theories about the color of black helicopters, to the Jerry Springer folks that claim they are married to aliens, so I can't can't claim to understand every commentator in wikipedia.

The problem for wikipedia is, if contributors continue the frenzied attack, it seems likely some users are going to not make the informative contributions they otherwise might.

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC) REVISED again, to try out fancy fonts.

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC) REVISED BY IHAVE TO add the snappy ironic new title

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Casolaro talkpage comment

If you wish to debate elements of logic, go to a philosophy forum. Wikipedia articles are written hopefully to inform, to present factual information. In your arguments against David Corn's grammatical structure and syntax, perhaps you are correct. Whether or not, your arguments about Corn's sentence structure are relevant to the Danny Casolaro article is not debatable as far as I am concerned. They appear to be disruptive and self-serving. Some editors in Wikipedia have coined an expression for what you appear to be doing; it is called "coatrack". Before I commented upon your comment on the Danny Casolaro talkpage, I checked your other contributions in Wikipedia and found further commentary of yours at David Corn's talkpage. Please confine your arguments regarding his sentence structure, syntax, logic, or whatever else you wish to bemoan over there, or on your own talkpage. If you continue to disrupt the Danny Casolaro article for the purpose of engaging debate in arguments for the purpose of illustrating a point of your own, then I will seek to have you blocked from the Danny Casolaro article. Wikipedia Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. (see here). Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. (and here). Lastly, the above editors have provided you with excellent welcome messages. I suggest that you take the time to follow their links, to understand what guiding principles are behind Wikipedia editing. —Dixie Brown (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)