User talk:Thaddeus Slamp

Your edit to Robert Anton Wilson

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for posting the question about Robert Anton Wilson. However, questions and comments should be posted to the article's Talk page, rather than edited into the article itself. I moved your comment to Talk:Robert Anton Wilson#The Sex Magicians; feel free to edit it or add more, and that is where you can expect any responses. Happy editing, --MCB 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 03:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message

Thanks for your message on my Talk page. I'll try to see if I can come up with a few suggestions, although I will be traveling for the next couple of weeks and my Wikipedia time will be very limited. I think light reading -- in small doses -- of just a few of the pages linked on the Help:Contents page will be way more helpful than anything I might come up with, though. Best, --MCB 07:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Allen Hulse

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as David Allen Hulse) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. OverlordQ 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: A page you created has been nominated for Speedy Deletion:

Hi! I wanted to let you know that I've nominated Donald Micheal Kraig for Speedy Deletion as a repost of Donald Michael Kraig. If you disagree that these articles refer to the same subject, post {{hangon}} on Donald Micheal Kraig and explain this on Talk:Donald Micheal Kraig. ST47Talk 14:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnosis (magazine)

As the author of the "dinky stub", let me formally invite you to extend it. I agree that the magazine deserves a better treatment, and was surprised when I discovered that it wasn't treated at all. -- Shunpiker 03:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freezone

My impression is that Freezoners imagine that no one is checking the Freezone and Rons Org articles and so having written them the way they want they don't have to watch them. Not so on WP! I'm passing warnings around but if they are ignored they will be altered.
--Hartley Patterson 00:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCN

You may wish to utilize the userbox {{User Scientology project}}, to denote your participation in the project. Yours, Smee 04:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A manual message from no bot at all

Hi. Please, please, please put in the ~~~~ four tildes at the end of every edit - it is so annoying not to be able to see who is doing all the fine work, and also who is making valid points in the talk pages for the articles! Best wishes. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 17:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have absolutely no idea why you are so upset. The only input I had was to mention the four tildes. When these are signed it helps me recognise who is making good edits or otherwise. I have made no mention of whether your edit contributions are good or bad, and would never do so outside of a 'Request for Comments' page (the above comment is not sarcasm - anyone can see you have tried to do your best for the article, and you have made excellent points in defence of it at the talk page for the article).

My entry to your talk page is nothing more than what it says, "please help me by signing your stuff so I can understand easier". If you choose to read something else into it, I have no control over that.

Please have a look at my contributions to better assess my Wiki intentions. I have done so with yours, and find that you are a proper Wikipedian. Reminders about signing don't affect that good record one bit. I have no wish to go higher on this, so I will leave that as your decision. I say again as I did before, best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thaddeus. I am glad you are assured about my intentions regarding Wiki editing. I don't troll and I don't vandalise. However...

In the course of my recent change patrols, I sometimes come across random articles such as the one you contributed to, David Allen Hulse. Having maybe checked out the recent change as valid, I might sometimes feel it would be constructive to interact with one of the editors - in your case it was purely to try to emphasise how important tilding is, and how frustrating it is not to be able to see who is conversing on a talk page without checking the History or going into Edit mode. Sometimes the bots fail to add an automated signature (but Hagerman seems to be obsessed with you! That was what I meant by 'no bot at all', just as a light-hearted humanist slant).

We have nothing in common except for the good of the encyclopedia. That's quite enough in common for me, I don't know about you. If you'd like to keep in touch in future, I will certainly be adding you to my user watchlist as one who is worth it.

Best wishes once again, no need for the apology, I apologise for preaching tildes! Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (Duly signed and dated, sir!) :-)[reply]

Major humble apologies

. The reason I thought you were being sarcastic and failed to assume good faith, is that you chose stuff I suspect most contravercial/ becouse I know that there are much better Wikipedians than I. I do things sloppily when it seems to me content above form needs be emphasized (tho a little bit of laziness is involved) and I know that such is not entirely lacking error/ is sure to rise ire amongst some. I walk on egg-shells, in a way, on wikipedia, becouse I value it highly. I also pull no punches, and its a difficult ballance. Also I usually work with some strange work station restraints.

I don't know if such is appropriate, but I wish to go into detail about how I ended up jumping the gun: 1) someone else had already asked me to better mytilding habits 2) the article you intralinked is 1 that still has an editors label questioning the articles validity. I've written another article that is not so racked w/ contraversy. 3) when you intralinked on the words "valid points". I confused it w/ a reference to "important points" in a talk page question to user: Antaeus Feldspar questioning why he trashed an article improvement I attempted/ which I'd yet to give responce. Feldspar aint no joke. It looked like someone was having fun @ my expence.

Right after I wrote you someone vandalised my user-page.

Scanning your work real briefly, I see no major points of common interest. What brings you to my neck of the woods?

yr sandbox

hey man, i've looked it over and it seems i put < nowiki > tags around a copy of Timothy Leary's persondata and categories, just so your sandbox page itself didn't show up in, e.g. [[Category:1996 deaths]] or any of the other various categories T.L. was in. hope this is ok. tomasz. 12:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 03:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Handbook for Preclears

A tag has been placed on Handbook for Preclears, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Charles 03:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Analysis

A tag has been placed on Self-Analysis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Charles 03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation

A tag has been placed on Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Charles 03:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 04:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?! Assume good faith, sir.

You have no right to accuse me of showing bias, sir, as you did here ([[1]]) and here ([[2]]), and you have no evidence for such a claim. I placed a large number of speedy tags on a wide variety of articles, based on a sincere belief that they did not meet Wikipedia's qualifications. Most of the articles I tagged were about nonnotable bands and people. I have no bias either for or against Scientology or related matters. Please assume good faith in future. Thank you. ---Charles 15:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject dispute

Re your message to the WikiProject Council: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes should help -- TimNelson 11:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Interactive Drama

Please reply at Talk:Live_action_role-playing_game#Journal_of_Interactive_Drama citing sources for your claims about the Journal of Interactive Drama. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]