User talk:Amerana/Archive 1

Yah
This is my first post.--Amerana (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Amerana Make [Siege of Miletus] article, Arrian p. 79-83.

Ariobarza 1
She was blocked for original research. I'd suggest starting with the references in the article. There's no way to get in touch with her that I know of and as her edits were not considered reliable... dougweller (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Campaigns of Cyrus the Great
I tried to talk her into something like this, I think it's the way to go. Ask User talk:ChrisO what he thinks, this is very much his field and it would be good to have him on board if only in saying it's a good idea. He's an expert on this. dougweller (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron


I notice that you are part of Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I kindly do not accept your offer to join the rescue squadron. A future possibility still exists though. Warmest regards. Amerana (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope to see you in the future, thank you so much for taking the time to respond.... Best wishes.Ikip (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ariobarza 2
Let's just suppose for a minute that you are not Ariobarza. You have to admit that everything you've done so far makes you look like Ariobarza - especially rescuing her articles. So why are you so suprised that someone accuses you of being a sock-puppet for Ariobarza? Unless, of course, you are Ariobarza, and you don't want to be discovered?

Your point about IP addresses is irrelevant. You can change your IP address at any time, without moving. And anyway, you've made edits from at least two IP addresses yourself, so the argument that you are not using the same IP address as Ariobarza is not valid.

As for "stalking" you - I wasn't - you made edits on pages on my watchlist, which look exactly like Ariobarza edits - and this alerted me to this account. But I am completely within my rights to "stalk" you, if I want.

And this is just laughable: "But because your head is too clouded with getting back at Ariobarza, you'll do anything to make sure her work stays buried. I for one, plus some other users agree that Ariobarza, though given a lot of chances to improve herself, was ultimately treated very badly by some users on Wikipedia." Ariobarza wasn't treated badly, they were given every chance to improve, but refused to. I do not want to "get back at her". I do not want to do "anything to make sure her work stays buried". How could you come to those conclusions based on the message I left on Doug's talk page?

I couldn't care less about her "work". What I do care about is a banned user trying to return to Wikipedia. If I suspect that someone is a sock-puppet, I am entirely within my rights to report that suspicion. Thus my message to Doug was not threatening to you. Note that I did not say "this user should be banned". I just reported my suspicion to an administrator so that they could take whatever action they thought best.

If you are not Ariobarza, and if you don't want to be accused of being Ariobarza, I suggest that you stop acting like Ariobarza. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Verbal  chat  11:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand you're adding these sources trying to help, but they are not sources we can use and are therefore unhelpful. All the best, Verbal   chat  11:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hyello
Hi! Nice to meet you! I am excited and happy. I just joined project moon and was just wonderning what are your thoughts on the creation of a lunar anomaly article. Which will pertain to various mysteries sorounding the moon. I saw that your an outgoing person, so I decided to get your take on it. I did not comment on the first user listed in the project moon page, because it said on his page that he was paid to observe the moon by a governmental agency (it was a turn off). Nevertheless, for better information on what I mean, type in [Lunar Anomalies] on google without these "" or [], and you will know. By the way I am sckeptical about the topics too, but consider if such things are real, to have great implications on the human race, perhaps being mankinds greatest scientific discovery of all time. So just give me your thoughts, and I thank you for reading my message.--Amerana (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Amerana. I'll take a guess that you don't mean transient lunar phenomenon. If you're going to tackle something like that, I've found that it's important to make sure the page satisfies the WP:Notability guidelines. Otherwise somebody is likely to put the article through the WP:AfD deletion process. You might look at some of the existing quasi-scientific pages and see how they do it. (E.g. extrasensory perception is properly cited; UFO is partly cited, but still has some neutrality issues.) Thanks and good luck.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again, thanks for the great tips, I understand what you mean. These types of articles are hard to swallow by science. But just so you know, my Lunar amomalies topics (here it comes) has to do with governmental and non-governmental photographs and films of (not just lights, physical crafts, or Foriegn Intelligence Objects, a term NASA gives them) UFOs, possible artificial structures, scientific theories about the origin of the moon, and the hollow interior hypothesis. Plus, microbeal lifeforms found in lunar rocks brought back from the moon landings. I know it is hard to conjure this information, but I have personally seen this information. So I think it is beyond notable and it will help others understand that the moon is more interesting. If you have any free time on Wikipedia, I urge you to type in Lunar Anomalies on Google, avoid the moon landing conspiracy stuff(some of the photos were taking before going to the moon, 600 tapes missing, confirmed image distortions, possible double secret landings unrecorded), and focus on the photo analysis. A good site is biblioapocolyptas, or something like that, it will be found in your search. Other scientific journals, books, and Soviet and NASA documents, Brookings report, have talked about this phenomena. Trust me, if you search for it, you will be delighted at the information, and get a sense of its importance. If you want, just put your response in the same category of the previous message, and you don't need to include this message with it, thanks you so very very much.--Amerana (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is "tough to swallow by science" as much as the fact that science requires reproducible results and control experiments. (Although individual scientists may certainly have their biases.) TLP, for example, are likely a valid phenomenon, but scientists typically don't study it. As for working on such a project, well I'll just say that I have certain topic preferences that I keep to. This just doesn't sound like something I'd find interesting. Sorry.&mdash;RJH (talk)