User talk:Camridge

{| width=100% cellspacing=8
 * colspan=3 style="border: 8px solid #eee8aa ; background-color: #bdb76b ;" |



Regarding the ENGRAM article
You have modified the article and introduced the word "pseudoscientific" at the entry point where Dianetic's use of the word Engram is posted. May I graciously point out that an idea must first be introduced before its controvery is spelled out because unless that form is followed the whole article is opinion. Opinion is all right, controversy is all right but until an idea is spelled out or defined, a person can not understand the various sides of controversy. So, in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia I point this out, have a good one :) Terryeo 20:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer Terryeo. I think there is probably a better way of writing it in. I will have another look. Regards Camridge 02:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that -- according to Terryeo's recent RFAr -- Terryeo's comment above about introductions is incorrect. The idea of sympathetically introducing a topic and then covering controvercy has been formally rejected. --Davidstrauss 20:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou David thats very helpful. I will have a look for any articles/policy pages where it has been rejected. ATB Camridge 04:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -Will Beback 04:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Will. My edits have often been mistaken for vandalism, and have been reverted hundreds of times, whether I place a summary or not.  I'll try to be formal. Camridge 04:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's not about being formal, it's about communicating with your fellow editors. I see you're editing quite a bit tonight. Are they all edits that everyone can agree on? I hope so. -Will Beback 07:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreement would be nice. Until then we are going to have to rely on direct quotes from the literature, and work from details to summaries.  ATB.  Camridge 08:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

location
I have a few questions regarding your editing patterns: Firstly, are you also located in China? ---=-C-=- 18:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm located in Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong. You are located in Sydney Australia, the same as your meatpuppet co-NLPpromoter, GregA. Camridge 04:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg
Hello, Camridge. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg) was found at the following location: User talk:Camridge. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)