User talk:Darwin Tallhouse

Welcome!

Hello, Darwin Tallhouse, 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! Kukini 06:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that Bruno reference--I noticed last night that that was strikingly absent. I'm hoping to try to improve this article (and others about Crowley), but I'm somewhat intimidated by him. Nareek 16:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno and Crowley

Hi Nareek,

I have no idea how this messaging works. If you can read this, then thank-you for your message! [Oh, now I'm learning! Slowly!]

Crowley IS daunting -- I've edited him! But you're right, Wikipedia is a marvelous experiment, and if you're inclined to improve on the Crowley articles, go for it, I know you'll do him justice!

Hey, I just added a link to the monad picture-caption on the John Dee article, and just discovered that the artwork at the end of that new link looks great when saved as a desktop-background.

Cheers,

Darwin Tallhouse

Sign your posts on talk pages

G'day there,

Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.

Good luck and happy editing, Alph a x ^τεχ 08:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Afd of Coincidences etc

Hi Darwin - the comments in the AfD should give you some indications about the article. The most important thing is that the article should be encyclopaedic - in particular, it should not be regardable as original research. At the moment, the article simply says that there are coincidences and mentions two - neither of which seems a particularly significant coincidence.

With the poster, fears of an airliner hitting the buildings were common when it was built, and were no doubt an influence of Al qaeda using that as a means of destroying the building. Any poster depicting such a collision would logically show the plane hitting at the most practical point - i.e., where it would do the most damage but still easily clear the rooves of other buildings. So to call that an eerie coincidence is a big stretch.

As to the Yes lyrics, picking one piece of lyrics from one of the hundreds of albums that would have been released on a September 11th is just a confirmation of the law of averages. Just a quick random selection of CDs from my own collection found a dozen tracks which could be very vaguely interpreted as referring to 9/11 - or any of dozens of other events (the first one I grabbed was a Robyn Hitchcock album where he sings "My favourite buildings are all falling down", for instance). So what you currently have is an article that tenuously links two things as being eery coincidences (neither of which are) to an event, with no suggestion that anyone other than you as author have noted these coincidences.

If you can find evidence that a widespread acknowledgement that some things seem uncannily coincidental - some references from online newspapers, say - then you'll have the start of a more plausible basis for an article. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - you wrote:

One point of etiquette -- should I be replying to it on my own page, or here on your page? What do folks usually do?

It varies from person to person. Most people reply on the other person's talk page (it's more likely to be seen). Others have a note at the top of their talk page saying "If I reply it will be on this page". Others still reply on the other persons page and put a quick one sentence summary on their own. Whichever you think is most effective, basically.

I would like to voluntarily take down my article; what would be the best way to do that? Also, it would be nice to be able to save a copy -- should I simply make my own copy of it?

The easiest way is to go back to the AFD page and say you'd like the page to be userfied. What that means is that it will be deleted from the main article space and turned into a sub-page of your User page (probably with a name like User:Darwin Tallhouse/Coincidences relating to 9/11). technically you can do that yourself, but since there's an AFD in process, it probably makes sense to formally request it.

Thanks for your care.

Glad I could help :) Grutness...wha? 00:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue for now...

Make it a stub. I have honestly not yet created a disambiguation page. If you want to read up on how to do it, though, go here...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disambiguation Kukini 06:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]