User talk:Lcarroll

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!) Hello, Lcarroll, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Be Bold!
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us a bit about yourself

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Lumos3 (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

February 2009
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Indigo children
You can't just go claiming to be the author. WikiPedia is going to need proof that you are the book's author before you go editing an article you "claim" to be about something of yours. Please show us proof. Thank you. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Eugene's statement is not quite correct. We have no method of verifying your identity, so you cannot add unverifyable assertions to WP even if you know them to be true. Sorry. This can be very frustrating. Please see below. Please don't get discouraged. -Arch dude (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the wikipedia article on them (not your books) and well isn't the whole thing of indigo children in a way the opposite of autism? Autists have trouble understanding people, communication, socal issues, etc. whereas indigo people excel at it?

Also you went and corrected factual errors about a subject matter that you're an expert on. This has happened on wikipedia many many times before. It has always ended badly. There's lots of stories about it if you google. What is taken is fact and reliable on wikipedia is basically whoever wins an edit war and on some articles completely phoney sources are considered valid and on others they only count online news articles. It all depends on the people who show up to fight over the article's content. Wikipedia likes online news articles but then the online news article has factual errors like one guy who runs 4chan gives a fake name to reporters as "Christopher Poole" and the news sites report it like it's true. There's been other offshoots like Citizendium that value experts, but without allowing the masses of the internet to edit, they'll always be small sites.

If you try to fight over your content, well you're fighting using your real life identity and the other people are fighting using anonymous pseudonyms so whatever they do, it won't stick to their real name.

Well... Basically since they use your website as a reference for Lee Carroll and Indigo children, maybe you can simply note factual errors there and use that to correct things and reference the website. I recommend doing that. Just don't make it blatant saying "here's wikipedia errors to correct" but reference some article on the website.

Also, I saw that you channelled information from a spirit for your work. This is always curious because I know a bit about this and I know some stuff about that and well, there's actually a bunch of spirits out there that will lie to people and make stuff up, which can even be seen by people that channel, get prophecies, and then the prophecies don't happen and the channelers are baffled. I've known many people who've communicated with spirits and the spirits either did prophecy or he spirits said they'd give them supernatural powers and well the spirits lied and that was that. So you have to be careful what spirits to trust when channelling. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Reliable sources"
Hi, Lee.

I see that you have run afoul of our "reliable sources" policy. This can be extremely frustrating when you are an expert or when you have personal knowledge. Please allow me to give you some background to show how our policy follows is a logical consequence of how we operate.


 * anybody can edit.
 * we do not have a mechanism to verify who our editors are, and we do not have the infrastructure in place to create such a mechanism.
 * Therefore we do not permit original primary publication of facts. Instead, we are a "secondary source" or a "tertiary source." This is standard for an encyclopedia, and is essential for us. This means that material should not be added to Wikipedia unless there is a reliable source for it. A reliable source is a source that does have the infrasructure in place to identify its authors and hold them accountable (at least in theory.) This includes newspapers, book publishers, journals, etc.

You claim to be the author, and assuming good faith, I believe you. However, we cannot act on this belief: the person whose username is Lcarroll could in fact be some nutcase with an axe to grind to damage the reputation of the actual author, or a fan of the author, or anybody. Therefore, we cannot give the person with this username any more (or less) accountability and authority than anyone else.

So what should you do? You should publish your factual material at a reliable source, and then cite the source when you add the material to the WP article. While we do not in general use blogs as a reliable source, a signed article by you on your publisher's web site will certainly count as a reliable source.

About WP:COI: we discourage editors with a potential conflict of interest from editing an article. However, we do not prohibit it. To avoid any possibility of this, you may choose to discuss your edits on the article's discussion page first.

About me: I am merely one of the six million Wikipedia editors. I have no more or less authority or responsibility than you do. Good luck. If you need help, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
Please read and abide by the above (and the following) admonitions about original research and verification with reliable sources. If you continue this type of editing you will be blocked from editing. Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. . Ward3001 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)