User talk:Me, Myself, and I are Here/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

@High-storian: Okay, FINALLY got around to reading this (100% on both tests! Irrelevant, sorry)... I think I get it so far – primary sources may not make their case clear, secondary sources are vulnerable to (mis)interpretation, as they are interpretation, which is nearly inevitably biased. (Are there any prescribed learning outcomes that I'm supposed to meet?)

Welcome back! Glad to hear you aced your tests. I guess setting the project aside for a bit was worth it.

As for primary sources, it's not that they don't make their points clear, they certainly do. But they only make a point or two. They don't tell a story. Facts by themselves are dull, cold and boring. That's why a lot of people find history dull and boring, because they focus solely on long lists of facts, and fail to see the larger story.

Yes, this did raise a lot of questions, some perhaps a bit inane:

• What kind of evidence would be necessary to conclusively disprove Hitler's suicide?

Excellent question! Well the first evidence that re-opened the case was the DNA testing of what the Soviet Union alleged was a piece of Hitler's skull. The results showed the owner of the skull had XX chromosomes. So that's a problem. It could have been Eva Braun, but it couldn't have been der Führer. Unfortunately, family members who could have confirmed the identity of the skull refused to participate in DNA tests.

That lead to a review of the known facts and tesimony of witnesses. No one saw Hitler commit suicide. They heard a shot, and they saw a body removed and burnt. They knew who was in the room, but they didn't see the body, itself. (It was wrapped in a carpet, I believe.) We can conclude that someone was shot, removed and burnt ... but who? Hitler? Or Eva? It was assumed Hitler ... but you know what happens when you assume. Only after the U.S.S.R. crumbled was it possible to examine the remains, which the Soviets took with them. And DNA testing itself is of only recent origin.

The one thing the DNA results actually does is it throws the "official" story into question. If the body was Eva, and not Hitler, then what really happened in the bunker? If the shot heard killed Eva, then what happened to Hitler? Could he still have been alive? Could he have shot Eva, and ordered to have her body burnt, and a story told of his suicide to provide him the cover he needed to escape Berlin, and rebuild the Third Reich elsewhere?

The other evidence we have is recently declassified information that shows the U.S. was actively engaged in a search for Hitler, years after his alleged death, in Argentina. Also, the Soviet Union told two stories about Hitler's fate. The "official" story, or rather, what now seems to be the "cover" story, of suicide, and a classified story of an escape. Stalin was one heck of a figure, himself. The idea that he would order two stories be told about Hitler was very much in his character. He knew it'd drive the U.S. crazy. With the primary evidence (the remains of the body which we now know is not Hitler's) safely behind Kremlin walls, he knew that the U.S. would be forced into a wild goose chase for the creep. Remember, this is the age of the Nuremberg trials, and Nazi hunting was in full force.

Unfortunately, the U.S. was not successful in locating Hitler. So the U.S. had a choice to make. Admit that Hitler slipped through the cracks, and that the worst dictator to walk the face of the earth got away scott free?? Or, buy into the "cover" story ... one that protected the U.S.'s reputation, and besmirched Hitler's?? Which story would you tell? It's a no-brainer. If Hilter should ever be found, the U.S. could always reveal that it never believed the "official" story, and could glory in the triumph of bringing the ultimate bastard to trial. If he wasn't found, it could always point to the "official" story, and say that there was no Hitler to find, because he was already found, dead.

Argentina's had a long and troubled history. Plenty of political instability and corruption. It also had a large number of German immigrants. In recent years, with the release of the declassified U.S. investigation records, and the ability to do actual field research in country, circumstantial evidence has turned up that supports the theory that Hitler fled to Argentina, and died there an old man. There is plenty of evidence of Nazi activity there after WWII. Interestingly, a hideout with access tunnels has been located. An escape route has been pieced together. Certainly, the case that Hitler escaped is much stronger than the case that he committed suicide. Indeed, the evidence at this point meets the Preponderance of the evidence, which is the standard for civil trials. But "conclusive" proof, as you put it, or beyond a Reasonable doubt, can only be a body. And that's still yet to be found. But we know where it's not. The Soviets did not have it. What happened in the Führerbunker? Where and when did Hitler die? The only thing we can say for certain is "we don't know". But we do know that the "official" story doesn't add up. And the political need for a cover story benefited all parties. So that's what we've been sold. The answer is out there ... somewhere, waiting to be dug up. But if the body was properly cremated, then it's likely it'll never be found.

• Why are so many things (including this called the "shot heard round the world"?

That's much easier. Of course, the original "shot hear 'round the world" was the Battle of Lexington. The phrase meant that the shots fired in Lexington were "heard" across the Atlantic in London. Over a full year before the Declaration of Independence, it certainly was heard. It quite literally changed the history of the entire world. So the phrase is apt.

In the politically tense years leading up to WWI, Europe was a virtual powerkeg waiting for a spark. The assassination of the Archduke of Austria was that spark. Like Lexington, a single gunshot was the trigger to a full-scale war. So the phrase was revived again.

In today's bumper-sticker world, where a snappy headline sells papers, the phrase came to be overused for just about any event that has that "one small act triggering a much larger event" quality. Baseball certainly sells papers, especially with a snappy headline that makes the story seem larger than it is. A game and pennant-winning home run over traditional rivals is certainly an emotional event, and with a little headline writing hyperbole, well, there you go.

Other examples of historic events leading to common day expressions, the use of "John Hancock" for "signature," as in, "Put your John Hancock here."

The never-ending use of the suffix "-gate" to mean scandal. Coming from Nixon's Watergate affair, newspapers and media brand everything "-gate" ... Contragate, Bridgegate, etc., etc.

• What work do modern historians do (TV tells me they write books and appear on documentaries )?

Well, sadly, history is, for most of us, a labor of love, and not of profit. There is money to be made, but mostly in manufacturing trinkets and running tourists traps. As for real, professional history, the only real employment is in university professorships.

Many of the books published actually start as a Doctoral thesis. A university press will review each year's theses, and select a handful for publication. Being published this way is a sort of post-Doctoral "degree", if you will, and considered to be a high honor. That is what is really meant by the phrase, a "published" historian. Of course, many amateur historians often self-publish, using one of the many vanity presses out there. So just because he's written a book, doesn't mean he's a good historian. That's why it's important to know who the publisher of a book is. Of course, just because a book is self-published doesn't mean it's not any good, but what it does mean is that no other publishers were willing to make the gamble for it. It could be a book that would sell to a very limited market. Say, the history of a hospital, for example. Only of interest to those living in the city, and perhaps having a medical background. While a history of Egyptian medicine has a wider market, to those with an interest in the ancient Egyptian culture. There are also micro-presses, out there, that stand in between the extremes of major publisher and vanity press. They cater to very narrow interests, such as Mainspring Press, which specializes in the vintage phonograph industry.

There are also "historians" who will do work for hire. Companies wanting corporate histories, for example, for publicity purposes. Then again, those projects can't be "real" histories, as the work produced has to meet the purpose of the company hiring you. If they don't like what you've written, you don't get paid. So the story has to please the client. That means that unflattering portions of their history will, by necessity, be glossed over. So it's hardly an impartial work. "Unauthorized" histories, on the other hand, are published by third parties and don't have to meet the approval of a client. But then, it does have to meet the approval of the publisher, who has his own agenda to meet. "Unauthorized" histories tend to be sensationalist.

So, now you're starting to see some of the questions that need to be asked when evaluating a source. Who is it published by? What is their business and reputation? Why was it published? Whose interests are being promoted? For university presses, it is the university that's being promoted. So, somehow, somewhere, someone has to benefit from the work. Knowing who and why tells you something about what's been written.

Excellent questions! It shows you're thinking critically, and asking the right questions, a great trait to have.

Sorry for the delay! Well, back to work. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back. I appreciate the sideline from sideline from all the research I've been doing on evermore narrow and obtuse questions. Hi-storian (talk) 05:39, 28 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)

Hi! I've been gone for weeks because I got overwhelmed trying to figure out how to add images (to the OTW entry). I went away and did other things (including going to a Wikipedia edit-a-thon: it was so fun to meet other editors in person). This morning I finally felt ready to figure it out, and I did! (I added the OTW logo.) Of course like most things on Wikipedia, it was just a matter of patience, but I'm so proud of myself (ridiculously so, really), I thought I'd pop over here and tell the first Wikipedian I met. (That's you.) Now I'm energized, maybe I'll do more "tiny little things." :)Frescadp (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Frescadp: Welcome back! Congratulations on adding your first image! (Just a heads up, I've gone and formatted the way I've seen other infoboxes). I'm considering uploading a picture my brother took of a gray squirrel, but there are a lot of those already... I'm glad you enjoyed your edit-a-thon and met good people. And now that you're back, you can help us with those tiny errors! (Hope I'm not scaring you off.) I look forward to seeing you around again. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

THANK YOU for fixing the infobox! I was so thrilled to get the darn icon on, I didn't even think about the formatting. It looks so "professional" now! I am done with editing that page for now--I replaced all the un-cited info and went ahead and deleted the 3-month-old warning box for that (and left a note in "talk"--but it seems whoever wrote that uncited stuff is not watching the page---or doesn't care). I am now composing my first new entry of my very own (for a woman artist), in my sandbox. I am tip-toeing, but BOLDLY! :) Frescadp (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Frescadp: No problem! I should have probably let you fix it yourself, but someone else would probably have corrected it. The page looks much better now – an image is worth [an arbitrarily large number of words]! I look forward to seeing your completed draft out in mainspace. (Do you mind if I poke around the draft?) Keep on being bold, and as always, happy editing! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No, no! Please DO help me "too much"! :) I don't think that I'd have even noticed the image wasn't in quite the right format, if it weren't for you. I trust that next time I'll know and at least try to "fix it myself." Bless you for offering to help with my draft--I would totally love your sharp eyes, when the time comes. I'll let you know. (Soon, I hope.) You are so nice, you deserve a kitten drinking a cup of tea on a starship! Frescadp (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Frescadp: Of course! I am sure I'll learn a lot from you, too, as you're a content creator and not just a gnome. Aw, I'd love to have a kitten drinking tea onboard a starship! I'd give one to you, too, if it existed. If only I knew how to use Photoshop properly... Anyway, good luck with your draft! Life can get busy, but there's no deadline on here, so take as much time as you need. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 00:23, 2 April 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)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: 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

@Harishk.its:  Done. No need to ping me on my own page, it notifies me anyway. I wish you future success in your editing, and I hope you enjoy being on Wikipedia! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Post punk indie funk

Hello, I read your other posts and you seem like a good resource for a couple of projects I've been thinking about. I'm sure you are insanely busy so I would deeply appreciate your time and expertise. I'm 45 and in the midst of a 7 year long midlife crisis that I'm just emerging out of.

I've always wanted to start a band since high school, and I don't know why I didn't do it. I even came up with the idea of using just a symbol for the band with no name only for Prince to do exactly that.

I'm a big fan of Joy Division. I loved how their entire being, music, lyrics and ultimately reality were filled with pain and angst. Their sound was unpolished and pure. I've also began to enjoy rap a lot. I'd like to merge the two. Is there room for a two-base guitar dance-oriented funk/rap sound that could evoke post-punk memories? Led by a middle-aged soon-to-be divorcee who can't sing and has no musical talent? Is this an impossible dream? Is this likely my middle-age s3xless life screaming in pain or could it be done?

If so, would you suggest a solo venture such as my new music favourite Halsey has done or a band approach? Halsey also uses a clever anagram, I could do the same as my name spelt backwards with a w added is Web of KeRed. I like visual appeal of both web and red in the name?

I love concept albums, my ideas include the thought that all men suffer from mental illness in their DNA, the doomed feeling that we are living in hell as we speak and the concept of falling in love She movie style with an AI machine.

I have two ideas where to base this venture. Calgary and Los Angeles. Any idea what would be better. I've also thought about Rome, GA.

I eagerly await your thoughts. Please be brutally honest as I'm sure you would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Losers Like Me (talk • contribs) 14:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, hello and welcome, Losers Like Me! (Why do you have that as a username? Don't be so hard on yourself.) Secondly, I'm not entirely sure how I managed to come across as a "good resource" in my other posts...is it possible that you have mistaken me for someone else? I have no expertise, and I am ridiculously unqualified to dole out advice. Compounding the difficulty is the fact that I am a stranger on the Internet and have less of a grasp on your situation than you do. I've also never heard your music. I have little to no musical talent, so even if I did hear a sample of your work, I wouldn't be able to tell if it is good and whether or not there's a market for it. You probably know more than I do about all of this. If you did come here by mistake, simply disregard the next paragraph and skip to the bottom of this message. Please do seek more educated and qualified advice from other people; I really cannot stress enough that I am neither knowledgeable or useful.

On the off chance that you are talking to me: I'm afraid I can only offer vague, unhelpful advice. I'll try my best. You're probably aware that it's incredibly difficult to succeed as an artist, and you've probably set some reasonable goals (May I suggest "become notable enough to merit a Wikipedia page"?), so I'll skip that. Once again, no musical knowledge here (unless you want basic piano theory), so though I personally like the idea of blending genres, I cannot say that everyone will. The name you propose, inspired by Halsey (You mean this Halsey? I love her music!), seems unusual enough to be memorable, but not quite as snappy. It's all really up to you. I'm a bit of a utilitarian, so a simple cost-benefit analysis would be where I would start. What is the worst thing that can happen if you do start a band? What are the personal costs involved (financial, psychological, etc.)? Are you ready for ridicule? Every artist must face criticism, some justified (take it) and some unjustified (ignore that). After you've done the necessary "calculations" and you'd still like to go on with it, I personally can't see the harm in trying. I hear Calgary's nice in the summer.

Finally, I would like to wish you every success, no matter what path you take. If you'd like to stay on Wikipedia, I'd be happy to help you with editing – that's a subject I know more about than major life decisions. Have a nice day! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome and the kind words, I really appreciate it.

I guess the username "Losers Like Me" isn't as bad as it might seem. I kind of think of Beck's Loser anthem when I think of it. I think if you were to evaluate my life in terms of the typical capitalist mindset, there is no question I am a Grade A loser. I have lost many, many great (and cool) high-paying jobs, usually within 6 months. Either my binge-drinking problem, my severe mental illness or the horrible writer's block I often get usually cost me the job. So yes, I'm a loser. But I'd like to think I could someday be a role model for everyone who feels that way or doesn't fit in to the classical 2.2 kids, picket fence measurement stick we use. Every time I fall, I always get back up and try again. Over and over and over again. I think that relentless approach is my best quality and I'd like to sing about it.

As for you bring a "resource", I think there's no question you would be ideal. Call it karma or whatever, but when I read your other pages you clearly are very kind, incredibly intelligent (without the accompanying ego), a teacher, an old soul and a great sense of humour. (Ths usre hass very goode spelng. LOL.) You could easily pull off a Dos Equis commercial as the most interesting woman in the world! (Y'know that would be a great secondary campaign for them wouldn't it?)

Since you responded it even seems more clear since you mentioned basic piano theory (learning piano is where I had planned to start), you like Halsey (which is always a great sign of good taste! After all, she is leader of the Revolution! I noticed you edited her page, do you know her?) and you claim to have no musical knowledge, so you're in my shoes so to speak about how hard this will be.

As for life decisions, I would agree I have to make them myself, you can't expect someone else to make them for you. But it is nice to have a total stranger be objective and throw out some sound advice on how to evaluate the process. The friends I have would reject my plans out of hand which isn't useful advice.

Ultimately, the best words you mentioned were the italic ones "trying" (I personally can't seem the harm in trying.) I followed your advice about the costs involved and they are pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things. Psychologically I would be set for a lot of abuse and I would expect it and be fine with it. I have decided to go with rap as my genre, and I think I could help stretch the limits of the art in its current form.

Finally, I'd love to learn about editing on Wikipedia, I've been on this site forever and I've never took the plunge in posting or editing. I used to work in financial printing for a couple years and I learned how to attempt 100% precision with editing, and I've always been fanatical about spelling and grammar ever since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Losers Like Me (talk • contribs) 00:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Losers Like Me: Aw, shucks...I didn't make any of those userboxes, so I can hardly take credit for the good humour of one. Wikipedia is actually full of fun, humourous people, and I recommend taking a stroll through Wikipedia:User essays and decrees (such as WP:SPIDER) and Category:Wikipedia humor whenever you have time. I will humbly thank you and deflect the rest of your compliments. You are too kind—I am pretty sure that I am actually a terrible person. You just can't tell because you don't live in my head.

I do listen to Halsey, but I don't know her personally! I've always considered my music taste questionable, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day and all that jazz.

As for your plans: Excellent! I'm glad to hear it. I'm very happy to have been of (at the very least, minimal) help. As for Wikipedia, I've posted a welcome to your page with a few helpful links and tips. (I noticed that you tend to forget to sign your posts, and you don't yet seem familiar with indenting! I also recommend to try to use edit summaries as often as you can, so other editors can understand your edits at a glance when they see them in the page history or their watchlists.) For basic questions, feel free to ask me, but by all means to go to another, more experienced user, the WP:Teahouse or the WP:Help desk if I don't or can't respond. Cheers! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

Hey, I see you are the type who keeps your head down and avoid confrontation (probably sensible) so it was surprising to see you monitoring the same page I was on a very controversial recent event. I know we should assume that everyone is coming here to contribute, but I have been disturbed by how many new accounts have dropped by on this article and others like it in order to clear the local police and government of any wrongdoing. Sometimes I feel like taking a break from current affairs articles, too often they descend into two camps representing themselves only, and no neutral factual content.

But, enough of my moping, have a blessed week to come, fellow Wikipedia '''tAD''' (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@The Almightey Drill: I am quite nonconfrontational...I think I may come off as a bit of a milquetoast in real life. I don't get into content disputes since I am not knowledgeable about any of the subjects – I think the only edits I am capable of making on those pages are fixing spacing, formatting and punctuation. But I do like to watch recent events (it's one of the ways I get my news) and controversial topics of interest. I love seeing people like you at work, generating and tweaking content to more closely approximate the impossible perfection of neutral point of view. Sometimes, I learn more from the sort of edits these articles get than the actual content.

Thank you for the message, and I hope you have a lovely week as well! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

What's up??

Haven't heard from you in a bit ... after not hearing from you for an even longer bit. Last I heard, you aced a couple tests you were concerned about, and was going to be getting back to your project. What's up? Buried with more schoolwork? Gave up on the project? I've been plenty busy with my own work, but there's always time to take a minute to say, "hi, still busy but hope to get back to you ... (in a couple days, weeks, months, etc.)"

Just like to know where things stand. I answered the questions you had, though I'm not sure if you were 100% clear on primary vs. secondary. Perhaps my answer on career prospects for historians discouraged you. But remember, what we were working on wasn't really about history, it was about research and editing skills ... something that you're going to use for the rest of your life, no matter what you wind up doing. I've used those skills in the Internet and cable TV industries, learning about my illness, and in many other aspects in my life besides history. In theory, we could pick any topic for your project ... we just settled on what we did because it seemed to suit your interests and gave us a way to work together without duplicating each other's work and giving you a chance to develop the article for yourself, with a little helpful guidance and suggestions.

I know school feels like it drags on forever. But time goes by faster the older you get. It'll be summer before you know it. I know it may not seem that way, right now. Chin up, kid, and keep in touch, okay?

Hi-storian (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: Hey! I'm so sorry about not getting back to you. I hope you've been doing well. I've been neglecting my spontaneous on-wiki communication, and generally only writing replies when it doesn't require a lot of critical thought. I'll offer my excuses now:

I underestimated my teachers. I currently have three projects and four tests this week (two down, two to go...). I expected them to want a break from marking after last week, but apparently not. They've also decided to assign spring break work (two chapters worth of AP Psych and a novel project), so I have to bring my textbooks overseas again. At this point, I'm not sure if I can spend enough meaningful time on the mummy project, complete my homework, and spend quality time with all my relatives. I'm rather disappointed in myself. I had myself geared up for reading about mummies and getting things done on that page...

I was also trying to think of more things to ask. I've come up with a lot of hopefully sensible (if a bit disjointed) questions. I think I understand where potential bias can come in and basic definitions of sources. As far as I know, on Wikipedia, most major news organizations are considered reliable, blogs and tabloids are not reliable, and YouTube/Twitter can be used under certain circumstances. Now, I'm still curious: since it seems that every secondary source has a potential for bias due to its nature as interpretation, who can we trust in this world? Less melodramatically, how do we extract fact from possible fiction? How do you weigh different sources against each other, if they say different things and are arguably equally reliable? How can we tell whether one is more reliable than the other without falling prey to the genetic fallacy? Specifically for the mummy project, I'm not sure I trust myself to choose actually good books to research. I suppose historians nowadays have less of a reason to be biased about ancient Egypt, but bias could still exist. As for more modern sourcing woes, I've also been watching a discussion on the alt-right page, the contents (especially the citations) of which are in dispute (so much so that it's been fully protected until March 10). (I've made some edits to keep the citations pretty, full and error message-free on that page, and I never took it off my watchlist.) I've been watching them debate wording, ref reliability, and what the sources said or did not say, which I thought would teach me something about sourcing, but it's only served to confuse me so far. I would like to be able to one day weigh in on those discussions.

Once again, I apologize for not responding sooner, and I think I will fade back into a general trend of wandering from article to article until summer comes. I'm only planning on taking physics and doing some volunteering, so it should leave me with lots of wiki editing time.

Will try harder to keep in touch, Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey there! Thanks for getting back to me. Sorry to hear about the project pile-on ... I figured that might have been what happened to you. Worse comes to worse, just remember, summer's coming.

You ask some excellent questions, and the answer is exactly what this project is really about. What I want to do is to show you how to do research. And the first thing is to start at the beginning. Don't get worried about the end of the project, just yet. It takes time, work and patience to answer your questions. And the only real way to learn is by doing ... under the friendly watchful eye of someone who can guide you in the right direction if you go off track. Sometimes, as you start a project, you find your project focus shifts on you as you discover what is and isn't available.

For example, I started with the intent to review the history of medicine, originally just as background material for a local project. But what I found was that most well-written histories (and most badly-written histories, for that matter) start with the Greeks, and ignore anything before then. As if the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians were completely ignorant of the human body and did nothing at all to try to cure their ills. I knew this to be false, so I started looking into what's been published on ancient Egyptian medicine. I found one really solid book on the subject, many so-so books, and a few lame ones. Interestingly enough, all the books discussed the written source material available, the Egyptian medical papyri, and they all did pretty much the same thing. There are about a couple dozen different texts out there pertaining to medicine. But all of the books listed only a dozen or so. About 8 or 9 of the texts were always the same ... but the remaining books in their lists of a dozen tended to be different. Sometimes, it's the same papyrus, with a different name, but usually, they were mentioning 1 or 2 papyri that hadn't been noted in other books.

What's more, the information given about the papyri, the basic facts and details, tended to be given only for 3 or 4 papyri, the rest were described in very general terms, if at all. Even on the details I had, one source conflicted with another. So at this point, my focus shifted from "ancient Egyptian medicine" (in general) to "Egyptian medical papyri". Now, as far as I know, there have been only two works ever produced on the subject that was in any way comprehensive. One of those works was a massive 9 volume reference written in German. The other is a book written in French. There has never been a comprehensive work done in English. So the scope of my project has gotten narrower and narrow as I discovered the faults in the available material on the subject. This is not unusual ... sometimes the answers aren't there for you, and you have to do your own work on the subject.

Another thing I had was that run-in with a witch who likes to eat newbies for lunch. Actually, that's perhaps the best thing that happened to me. I was getting into the watchlist habit. Something it sounds like you're doing, too. Fortunately, that whole episode broke me of that habit. The problem with the watchlist is that it's too easy to load it with things that have only passing reference to your project, and it tends to get you to focus not on your project, but on the passing chatter and nonsense on things that have marginal, if any connection with your project. Things have been better for me since I "just said no" to the watchlist. I'm leaving the nonsense aside, letting the bots worry about the vandals, and I'm just focusing on my project, nothing else. I suspect if you let the watchlist habit go, you may find some time to take a few small steps on your project. You don't have to devote your whole life to it, but just try to do one small thing at a time. You'll find that instead of wasting a couple weeks on nonsense, you may actually make some small progress on the project. And that's how a project gets done, one small step at a time. Remember, "a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

As for your concern about picking good books on the subject ... don't worry about that. Start by finding books. It doesn't matter if they're good or bad. But start finding something, anything. I really can't offer you suggestions until I know what you have to work with. Once you have a few books, then we can start looking at them together, and we can discuss them. In the process, I'll be showing you how to evaluate the books. I'll guide you by the questions I ask. And I'm pretty darn sure that when you answer them, you'll actually answer your own questions. And that's exactly what I'm after. I don't want to give you a fish. I want to show you how to fish. If you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. If you show a man how to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime. I want to share those lifetime skills with you, especially since you're at the age where this will give you an advantage over all your peers. It'll only benefit you in school and college ahead. Watching an edit war can be captivating, like watching a train wreck. But as you, yourself just observed, you're not going to learn anything from it. My advise to you is to ignore the train wreck. Focus your limited time and energy on something that can benefit you.

BTW does any of your school projects involve research?? Perhaps we can do that, for starters, instead. Otherwise, when you have a minute, pick out a few books on Mummies and tell me what you've found. Don't worry about which ones are the "best", just pick something. Tell me what you've found, and we'll talk about it. And in the process, I'll start answering some of your bigger and more challenging questions.

Sound fair? Chin up, kid, and remember your own pseudo-Latin motto. Don't be afraid to make "mistakes", you learn more from them than from your "successes." The alternative is to do nothing ... and not learn anything at all. Remember, I'm not grading you. I want to see you learn something that will help you both now and in your very bright future, ahead. Sound fair? Keep in touch, okay?

Hi-storian (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: I'll admit to a certain bile fascination when it comes to edit wars or disputes. I'm learning so many new fallacies, cognitive biases and effects. I'm trying to wean myself off my watchlist habit: I've been gutting it to bring it down to just a few key articles of interest, but I just can't bring myself to clear it. I've unchecked the option that automatically adds each page you edit to the watchlist, though. One step at a time. I'll get there. I came on Wikipedia to fix the most minuscule of problems, and I'd like to continue to do that concurrently with some bigger projects (like this one).

As far as I know, no research is necessary for my projects – it's mainly literary analysis. Although we are learning about the World Wars in a very superficial manner, and I'd like to supplement that in any way possible. I understand that the fish won't hand itself in, and I'm prepared to work for it. (I did go fishing in real life once. I was terrible at it.) I will go hunting for some books (though where I'm going for spring break, the books aren't in English...). Summer cannot come quickly enough.

Oh...you remembered! Every student (including me) complains about homework, but I am grateful I have an education. It seems like a lot of work now, but I know it gets harder from here, so I might as well get used to it. Don't worry, it may take a few days or even a week for me to respond, but I haven't forgotten you. I've committed to learning about sources. I won't abandon my lessons.

Have a great day! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

LOL! Indeed, I did. I remember racking my brains to figure out what carborundum was, and realizing it wasn't a form of carbon, and that I really had no clue what it was. The world wars were a very complex matter. No high school treatment of the subject will go deeper than the most superficial aspects of them. Historians still don't fully agree on everything that happened, and the declassification of papers is still underway, so many details may yet be rewritten. (Like the ultimate fate of Hitler.) Events that intense take a good century before you can have enough perspective to look at all sides of the issue fully impartially. There's still too much emotion. There are still people with numbers tattooed on their arms amoungst us. In some ways, WW II still hasn't ended.

Anyhow, yes, please make a point of stopping by the library and spend a good 15 minutes or so ... shouldn't take much longer than that. It's a start. That's all that matters. Take it one step at a time ... but take a step.

You know, I wonder if there isn't a bit of a perfectionist in you. I hate to say, but I know the problems that perfectionism can do to a person. Don't let it happen to you. Perfectionism is a form of "all or nothing" thinking. That kind of binary logic that makes computers do what they do. But humans are not computers. Our brains don't run on digital logic. They are very much analog, in nature. And that's not a bad thing ... it's a good thing. Our brains are designed to handle fuzzy logic, especially pattern matching. And they have to produce answers with incomplete data ... something a computer can't handle. Everything is not black or white. It's not even 256 shades of grey. It's 256 cubed. 16M colors. And your work on the project need not be completely shelved until summer. But you can't put all your energy in it just yet. But methinks you can find a balance between the extremes. Your project won't be done overnight, even if you had put 100% of your time into it. But that's okay. You've got time. You just got to balance it a little differently. Keep your expectations reasonable. Don't focus on the whole project, just focus on the first step in front of you. Take that step. Then we'll worry about the next step ... one at a time, bit by bit ... and we'll get there. Just not as quickly as you wished, but that's fine.

As the saying goes: "Start at the beginning, proceed, through the middle, and when you reach the end: stop." Take care and hope to hear back from you sooner rather than later. Hi-storian (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: Thanks...I kind of guessed that about the World Wars. I've always put off reading about certain things because it was too complex to understand fully in a year, let alone a day. You're absolutely right about the extensive effects still felt by people living today, and that's one of the reasons I do want to learn about it.

I am actually a rather relentless selective perfectionist (as in I'm only relentless about a few things). I understand the problems that may come with that (never being satisfied with anything I do comes to mind). I'll try to keep that in check. I will find that balance, time- and attitude-wise. 256 cubed shades of grey... that's an interesting way to put it. Mind if I steal it?

Take care! I'll try my best not to disappear. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

LOL! Be my guest. Where it comes from: PC video uses three bytes per pixel (implemented as four bytes for performance reasons, but 1 byte is unused). One byte would give you 256 shades of grey ... but three bytes gives you 256 shades of Red, 256 shades of Green, and 256 shades of Blue, or 256 cubed, or 16,777,216 shades of RGB color, or 16M shades using computer math. All 1's gives you white, all 0's give you black. In between is the rest of the world.

As for perfectionism, there are some places where it's a good thing ... copy editing seems to suit you just for that reason. You seem to be exceptionally well-balanced ... I sure as heck didn't have your perspective on it when I was your age. It's something I still struggle with, but I know where it came from and I know it's something I have to fight against.

Don't get overwhelmed by the size of the project (in the early phase, it always seems to keep getting bigger and bigger on you) ... just take it one small step at a time. Don't sweat the small stuff. It's more important to make a start then to get everything "right" on day one. Allow yourself to make mistakes, and learn from them. They can be your best teachers. Don't be too hard on yourself. We're all only human. This is not a perfect world. By definition, a "perfect" universe would be very dull because after the Big Bang, everything would have canceled everything else out. The only reason we have stars and planets and elements and life is because the universe is imperfect. (Takes a little astrophysics, sub-atomic physics and M-Theory to explain exactly why, but trust me on this.) Imperfection is the only reason why our universe exists.

BTW some trivia for you. John Quincy Adams, when he provided in his will for the building of the library for his and his father's collections, insisted that precisely one tile of the tiled floor of the library be deliberately mislaid. You can see it today at their home, in Quincy, MA, just outside of Boston. He did it as a statement and reminder that all things human are always imperfect. Hi-storian (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: Hello! Hope you're not too busy. Thanks for that pep talk and for those interesting tidbits. I always learn something new from you.

I know the reference desk and talk pages don't like being used for homework-related reasons, but just out of curiousity, how would one research the Asia-Pacific war in French with no print media sources in either French or English? (My socials teacher, as it turned out, had a project to assign to us on the last day. I've been "procrastinating" by doing my other homework...) Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey there!! Sorry to hear that you're buried in homework, but always glad to help. Not sure I understand your question, though. By "Asia-Pacific war", I take you to mean the Pacific theatre of WWII. Or are you talking about the French Indochina War? Also, are you saying that you cannot find print media sources on it, and need help locating some, or has your teacher imposed the very bizarre demand that print media sources cannot be used? Just trying to understand the question, here. What searches have you tried at your library that came up empty?? If you only tried "Asia-Pacific War", I'd understand, that's not a standard subject heading, and a somewhat odd name that's somewhat ambiguous. Hi-storian (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: (Haven't done a P.S. in a while ... ) Do you have a written copy of the assignment, or was it just given verbally? Having the assignment in the teacher's own words, rather than a paraphrase might help clarify what he/she intended. Hi-storian (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: Thanks for the prompt reply! I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in the question. I meant to link it but when I opened the edit window I forgot why...oops. I mean the Pacific theatre of WWII.

As for the print sources thing: this project was given too late for me to put in an ILL, and I'm now in a small-ish town about halfway across the world from home where there are almost no English-language books, which really limits the selection to a pool of about 0–too-easy children's books. I was wondering if there is a good way to research this online at least until I get back to a major city area.

The project is to create "une présentation Power Point [sic] ou Prezi" and "une feuille de faits/évènements/notes (cheat sheet)" (for the class to look at/use) about "une bataille ou un enjeu" around "12-15 minutes au total". So of course, we need "informations générales (background information)", "l'évènement principal", and "les répercussions pour...les alliés dans cette guerre et/ou l'avenir." (Practicing research for Wikipedia-building with this is definitely indirect; I have no business poking around the content of conflict- and war-related articles. Punctuation fixes only for me.)

Thanks again! If there are any more questionable things about my question, ask away Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad I did one more check before calling it a night. Okay, that clarifies the situation a lot. Well, of course there are countless battles in the sad, bloody affair that we call WWII. Limiting it to the Pacific theatre reduces your choices to mostly countless. So the first thing is to pick a battle. Wikipedia should be a good start on that. Of course, it's not always reliable, and not a "source", but it's a start. The article you linked to seems to be a good starting point. Let's see, Pearl Harbor is what got the U.S. in the war, in the first place. The Battle of Midway is usually cited as the turning point in the war, Guadalcanal was a bloody mess, the abandonment and recapture of the Philippines is remembered in McArthur's "I shall return" promise. (Which was alluded to in the movie The Terminator with Arnold's line "I'll be back.") Iwo Jima is the site of the famous flag raising photo which give us a major boost in morale that this thing was going to get done. Okinawa was another bloody mess. Of course, Hiroshima and Nagasaki put one war to an end, but started another war of an entirely different kind.

The assignment is for a brief presentation with an outline, explaining the key events in the battle and the results / implications of that battle on the rest of the war or beyond. So your first order of business is to choose a battle. Then read through what you can find on it and start an outline. Things to look for as bullet points: the situation before the battle, how it started, major events during the battle, and the results (victor, casualties on both sides, military and civilian impacts, etc.) Lastly, as the assignment states, you need to assess "les répercussions" ... what did the battle mean to the war effort overall, and what does it mean today. Some battles have more impact than others. Oftentimes, battles are part of the messy affair of gaining ground ... meaningful only as one step of a longer range effort. Other battles are key moments that literally change history. For the U.S., WWII literally began with Pearl Harbor and ended with Nagasaki. Midway is where the balance of power shifted, and the roles of Allies and Axis reversed between offensive and defensive. Iwo Jima and that historic photo remains a powerful image today. Perhaps another battle may capture your interest and attention ... I'm just mentioning a few to give you some ideas on how to frame some common examples.

As for sources, you mention ILL is out of the picture, but certainly, you should be able to access your library's catalog and do some searches to see what they have, and if someone's taken it out, already, or not. If you have your library card with you, you may be able to put a hold on books for when you get back. Of course, there's a limit to how long a hold lasts. It sounds like the project really about the presentation. So don't think just in terms of books. PowerPoint is multimedia. Think in terms also of pictures, maybe even sound clips. (For Pearl Harbor, for example, the opening words of FDR's address to Congress, "...a date which will live in infamy.") These are all things you can find online. Remember, you're not writing a Wiki article, or a term paper. So this is not about citations of sources, rather, it's about choosing good things for the presentation, making a clear outline, and putting your research and thoughts together to clearly explain the significance of the battle.

I hope this gets you started and gives you some different avenues to explore. It sounds to me that the focus in this assignment is not so much in what you present, but rather, how you present it. 12-15 minutes may sound like a lot, but really, it isn't. You really need to get your story polished and streamlined to present it that quickly. So focus on the outline, the bullet points, and don't get bogged down in the detail. Use all aspects of PowerPoint's abilities to keep the presentation interesting ... pictures, short video, sound clips all help bring the story to life, and are available online. Wikipedia certainly has plenty of leads to those resources. Don't focus on what you don't have available to you. Focus on what you do have, and use it to your advantage.

Good luck! I think you'll do fine ... with a little help, perhaps, but you do have a good head on your shoulders and seem to be overall pretty well grounded. I'll check in again in the morning to see if you have further questions, but I think this should keep you busy for a bit. Take care, my friend.

BTW, yes, this is starting to get off-topic as far as what's acceptable for a Wiki talk page, so I've gone ahead and added my email to my Wiki profile. You can go to my page and in the Tools section of the Wikipedia bar to the left, click on "Email this user". Of course, you need to have an email address you don't mind sharing. But this is certainly a subject better suited for email than talk page. Hi-storian (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Me, Myself, and I are Here. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Just in case you're not checking there, first. Hi-storian (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Mmm! Thanks! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The "? unexplained change ?" was the chage before!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Trump&type=revision&diff=710204285&oldid=709965743. sincerly --Goetzmertz (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Goetzmertz! Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for fixing that, and I apologize for the error. Unfortunately, editors often don't have the time to check back in the history to verify every edit, so things like this happen. In the future, it would be helpful if you left an edit summary to explain your edit, to reduce the chance of these misunderstandings occurring. Best, Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Porter's

Apologies for this revert; I was targeting the addition of the word "intensity" that you had previously removed, and not the rest of your changes. Not sure why your change didn't show up when I made the edit. Kuru (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Kuru. No harm, no foul. It only took a few seconds for me to make those edits anyway. The edit-not-showing-up thing is odd, though – perhaps I should look into that. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Modeling of polymer crystals

Hi there, i have added links on see also section in order to remove the page from being orphan. please check it out and do help me if this is not the right way to do the work.please help me in removing the page as being orphan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hacker soni (talk • contribs) 13:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, Hacker soni. I should clarify that you have to add links that lead to the orphaned page (here, modeling of polymer crystals) to other pages in order to de-orphan it. For example, in this edit, I added a link to modeling of polymer crystals in the see also section of crystallization of polymers. It is now no longer an orphan, although I strongly suggest you find more articles to avoid a walled garden. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for giving care to new medical articles like Cortico-striato-cortical loop. Sometimes I check these things and am not really sure how to respond. Your adding links helps. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the coffee! That's very kind of you. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello stranger

Have a taco, *hands glistening toco* Demonicspider (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the taco, stranger! Do you need any assistance, or is this just a social visit? Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Molecular geometry

Hi,

i am curious about why the edit where you change the quote chars. --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jerome Charles Potts! I changed it because of MOS:QUOTEMARKS, which recommends the use of straight quotes over curly quotes. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)