User talk:MBlume

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Digresser 07:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * *grins* thanks, I'm having fun so far =) MBlume 22:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Beatles trivia on the chopping block
Dear Beatles editors, I have just seen a header that “The Beatles trivia“ is being considered for deletion. I would like you to take a look at it and vote to keep, or delete. The consensus will win the day, as they say…. I will not vote, as I have been personally involved in the construction of the page. andreasegde 01:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Expelled
Thanks for editing and contributing to Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I appreciate that style can suffer from balancing policies, and there's always room for improvement. However, these policies aim to carefully balance articles and inform readers without expecting them to read all the linked articles. Neutral point of view policy (which shows and balances viewpoints rather than adopting one idealised viewpoint) has specific requirements for NPOV: Pseudoscience, avoiding giving it NPOV: Undue weight or NPOV: Giving "equal validity", while NPOV: Making necessary assumptions about the validity of mainstream science. At the same time we must avoid original research in putting together facts in a way that no verifiable source has done in relation to the subject. The NYT is the best reliable source for a film which is barely notable without the controversy over its propagandist techniques, with most of the information available coming from its producers and promoters of intelligent design. Which is creationist, but its proponentsists sometimes deny it. Oh, and WP:LEAD requires the main issues of the article to be set out at the start. Controversial articles gives further guidance. As I think you'll appreciate, these essentials sometimes get in the way of stylistic simplicity, and the challenge is to meet them while achieving good writing. Your help with this is much appreciated. .. dave souza, talk 09:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Armistice on the Deepthroat Page
Dear mBlume. I couldn't find your shingle and this is the only talk page I could find regarding the Deepthroat page, please feel free to remove this after you have read it. I respect your Wikipedian work, but I disagree with your decimation of the Deepthroat (Sexual Act Page). That page not only talks about the sexual act, but the history of the act in media over decades and the performers who have that talent, which is relevant to the topic and should therefore be permitted. If you would like to create an additional page on the subject to house that information, that would be a fair compromise. Other than that, I will continue to defend the right of that page to exist. Please let it be. - pornranger 29 April 2008
 * Thank you - that was precisely the first action I took - in fact I'm pretty sure that the page I created - Deep throat in pornographic film still exists, though others removed links to it from the Deep throat page long ago. I also made a couple posts to the Deep throat talk page, and they are still the last two on the page - neither has been replied to:
 * 
 * 
 * I may be acting from ignorance here - if deep throat is predominantly a feature of pornographic film, and is not a technique commonly practiced upon actual men by actual women, then perhaps its article should be primarily a review of its artistic usage.
 * However, if it is first and foremost a sexual act (which is what the title of the article seems to imply) then it seems to me that an exploration of its use in film, especially one with this much detail, could be reserved for its own article. In any case, thank you for making the effort to discuss this with me, rather than simply reverting.  You will see that I have left the page alone pending the result of this discussion.
 * -MBlume (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD: Manichaean paranoia
Hi! I've nominated the article Manichaean paranoia for deletion because I deem that it is not notable and cannot become notable, because of the inherent contradiction in this political phrase. I'm giving you a notice on this because you have contributed to the article and I deem you have rights to have a say in the matter. My elaborate analysis of the failures of the article can be read in Talk:Manichaean paranoia. The discussion for (and against) deletion is kept in this page (WP:AfD/Manichaean paranoia (2nd nomination). Be welcome to partake! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)