User talk:Idealist707

Welcome to Wikipedia
Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 14:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello?
You're new, it seems, and appear to want to talk. But about what? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Gad Zeus!
I spoke to the statue on the Pantheon, and it replied! Your user page was a bit daunting with all its dingle-dangle and bling-bling. (Provoking you am I?)

In truth the very brevity of your reply is gravely admonishing to someone who usually replies at Proustian length (a stab in the dark simile). A proper expression for the moment might be: Great ideas are best expressed in few words, (I said that!). But then I have none, delighted if I can understand others', and feel better if I can exploit them with my own speculations and musings

Having exceeded your brief reply by a factor of five, shall continue by tranferring the lines I mistakenly wrote, but did not post, on your talk page to here. And will point out that I became acquainted with you (et al) on the Milankovitch cycles; where I left a comment on the group's quarreling. IE, I am not stalking you. So it was only one page that led me to you; I have no need to be a groupie either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Milankovitch_cycles#Sand_pile_antics.3F

If you wish to continue in brief, please write again; your subject as you choose. Dictate you own terms: ie level, time constraints, etc. To learn more about me, read on.

Pardon, but it seems.....
embarassing to carry on a dialogue on a public forum. I thought had read where you wrote that you were looking for suggestions about a Geezer pyramid, etc---perhaps somewhat facetiously. I in all sincerity suggested that you Wiki "Watts Towers", a one man slave effort presumably not fueled by onions as the Pharoah's were. And now your replying surprises me.

Answer the man's question, dammit!

Well I'll make excuses like most: am a 74 year old widower for 3 years, and having never been social, am now trying to learn how. As for interests, I for the first time in 40 years took 2 university courses (passed both) recently in Genetics and Evolution, and Modern Cosmology. Am parallel reading Lee Smolin "Three ways to quantum gravity", and Richard Hawkins "Selfish Gene", having resisted the latter for many years---just as I recently succumbed to Leonard Cohen's songs (after seeing a recently produced film edited from "lost" rolls (270 each) from a Euro-tour in 1971). (I hated being told as a young man that I lacked his soul (and sex appeal?)---hope for the latter, have none; but developing a soul would be nice.)

Having mentioned soul, I hasten to say am not religious; and prefer Sam Harris' view that we don't have to call ourselves "non-racist" nowadays; just so, an "evidenced view" of the universe, should not require characterization as "atheist" either.

I don't stroke an oar, but like sailing, which I did, it could well encourage a meditative state.

Am an American expatriate since 1965, and live in Stockholm since 1968, having near relatives in North Carolina. Worked with aerospace projects and real-time computers systems(steel rolling mill control, and first generation on-line networks as an assembler programmer), later in market communication. I speak French, Spanish, and Italian (besides Swedish fluently), and market Thai from living there one year designing USA bomber bases in 1965. Not having used English except on rare occasions, my sentence structure and use of prepositions is often faulty.

Can't imagine what Coton looks like, but the name is suggestive of something idyllic.

As you see at this point I'm verbose; but can be concise if necessary. I would be delighted to get to know you better, as you seems quirky in your way too, (a positive word to me).

I presume you will reply on this page. BTW, I am not seeking someone to compete with, but to instead exchange observations on life's seeming innocuousness and its profundity---and correspondingly for the universe on all scales. Idealist707 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk page edits
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in top right. For more details see talk page guidelines. Thank you. Danger (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for a special reply. Why special? It was courteous, succint, and in simple declarative form, and included helpful tips as to getting to the bottom of the page (I presume) using "new section"link in top right. You had also anticipated my seeking your page for a place to reply. Having reached your page it was amusing to see your self-characterization as an aetherial creature, by which I assume that you are a female. I wonder, just as to all persons I encounter here, not only what brought you here, but what drives your dedication. And the proud display of your medal of honor (admirable symbolization), etc and points of personal description. Succint, himorous, and telling. You have challenged my need for some basic education on Wikipedia. Guilt admitted. However, like many, faced with an inpenetrable jungle, I tried to reach my goal (of expressing my irritation at other's ignorance or more positive suggestions) by going around the hindrance.

Now as this point you have stopped reading, are wondering when I will get to the point, or even wondering if there is a point. Probably not, except to inform that I will now read the guidelines. If I find them excessively nerdy, which is likely, where may I complain? Just as I was disturbed when I found the instructions for voting in the referendum laden with nerdiness and inside labels. Wikipedia, in common with most institutions, requires a knowledge of an inside language to communicate with the dwellers of the temple and its servants, just as shibboleth was a verbal password, so have these system many, incomprehensible to ordinary persons, words for ordinary functions like editing. Bureaucracies, medical institutions, universities, branches of science, etc require the layman to understand them, not vice versa. Attempts have been made to correct this to mixed succes. It however fills needs such as a form of enabling specificity with few words, and acts a filter to keep out the unqualified, and thus diminish the workload, eliminate distractions, etc.

Goodbye. Amd thanks for the opportunity to satisfy my constant itch to write. smile. Idealist707 (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say that the message I left is an automatic one that I didn't write myself; it's a template (uw-toppost). I describe myself as ethereal as in "not detectable by normal senses", not as in "diaphanous" or as in "celestial". It's because the persona I've assumed on Wikipedia is quite different from how I behave in the world. So, no, it shouldn't be construed as a statement about my gender.
 * No need to admit guilt; the top-posting issue is a common one, since many bits of discussion software sort messages in the opposite order.
 * And you are right, the guidelines are rather impenetrable. If you have any suggestions about particular guidelines, you may either edit them yourself (edits are unlikely to stick though) or suggest changes on the guidelines' talk pages.
 * I'm happy be of service, even if only to enable your graphomania. If you need any more help, let me know. Danger (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

did not know how to remove talkback template so simply deleted it all by this edit. Idealist707 (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Idealist707 (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC) After signing an edit on a AfD discussion, I noticed that my username was in RED. clicked on it which led to my userpage which said this was usually written by the user, and saw that it was empty. I don't recall doing this. Is it obligatory? Have not noticed BEFORE the username called up by the four tildes WAS IN RED. Why now? Advise me, please. Does this function like chat in discussion with helper? Page ref for userpage editing??? Idealist707 (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that your username in red indicates the same thing as any other red link in Wikipedia - the page does not exist. You don't have to create a user page. I don't know why you haven't seen it in red before. Did you create a signature then delete it recently? That might have overridden the default colours. Or you might have changed browsers or browser settings and that changed the colour your browser rends links to nonexistent pages in Wikipedia. This is really nothing to worry about. If you don't like the red link, you can just create the page with whatever content you like. --MegaSloth (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)