User talk:Magnum Serpentine

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, 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. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!Mr. Yooper 19:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Skeptics
One thing I do not like is how many aspects of media has been changed by Skeptics. I use to be able to watch such things as In search of and other things and be presented with what the person making the film feels on the subject. The station would put the notice that this view is but one of many views and that all views should be researched. But now, it seems the only shows on the popular networks that deal with UFO's were written by Skeptics and there is no objectivity to the film. It is done to present one and only one viewpoint and that point is if you believe in such things you are a quack. I have talked to too many honest people who feel that they cannot report their sightings because the skeptics will do all they can to discredit them the person,not their sighting.

I want to ask the skeptical project here in Wikipedia, this question. Are you changing articles so they include all Viewpoints presented in a equal way, or are you going after articles because you feel they are quacks and should be re-written in the eye of the skeptics? I believe mine is a fair question.


 * I may start keeping on this talk a list of articles totally re-engineered by the Skeptics to where they walk lock-step with the Skeptical Inquirer.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * UPDATE. My views on Skepticism has changed. However I feel the Skeptical Inquirer could handle subjects in a better way Magnum Serpentine (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your question, re planet
I thought I might post an answer here, instead of on the talk page, because that discussion is already getting too long and anything I said would get lost. It is important to remember that a) not all astronomers are planetary scientists, and therefore qualified to make a decision on the issue, and b) many astronomers making the fuss were not there to begin with, even though they've had more than a year to arrange their schedules. Serendipodous 08:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I See... So... Only 424 people were planatary Astronomers out of 9000?

Fair-use images removed from your user page
Hello, Magnum Serpentine. I've removed some images from your user page, as they are copyrighted, unlicensed images that are being used on Wikipedia under claims of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see the ninth item of the Wikipedia fair-use policy and Removal of fair use images. These images have not been deleted from any articles. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed the two boxes that had images which I had thought were in public domain due to their age. I re-built the Military History box using an Image of the Battleship USS Arkansas using a Image funded by the Taxpayer.

I do not understand how an image, owned by the People of California and The United States, can be copyrighted... The Taxpayer paid for the image and the Taxpayer owns the image. The person who made the image is in the same class as the sailor who took the picture of the USS Arkansas. A Government Employee creating an image as part of his or her Government Job ( Sailor-Photographer for the Arkansas, Artist for the State Seal)

Also the Image of the State Seal was created in 1848AD thats well beyond the age of Copyright. I am very confused on this matter, how can an Image I own as a Taxpayer can be copyrighted?


 * State governments can hold copyrights, just as any other entity can. It is only the United States federal government whose works are generally free from copyright, and that seems to be rather peculiar among governments. I agree, though, that it is odd that the state seals on Wikipedia are tagged as being copyrighted and available only under a claim of fair use; but until someone can give evidence that the images are actually in the public domain, and tag the images accordingly, we must follow the Wikipedia fair-use guidelines. I removed the images from your user page because they are tagged as being fair-use images; if this is incorrect, and you can give evidence to show that it is incorrect, then please fix the tags.
 * If an analogy helps you to understand how a state government can hold a copyright, consider the fact that many corporations hold copyrights as well. Even if you're a stockholder in the corporation, you must respect the corporation's copyrights. —Bkell (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. I had no ideal that States could hold Copyrights. It is extremely odd that a state would want to copyright its seal but I will just play it safe and let things be as they are Because I thought States and the Federal Government were the same on Copyright. I do thank you very very much for responding so fast. Thank you again. As I said I removed the two literature items, I had no ideal they were not Public Domain. I get that confused It seems. I also replaced the Military History User Box with one of my own using the Battleship Arkansas as the image. Magnum Serpentine

Vandalism
Yes, anyone can revert vandalism, or make any edits that improve the quality of the encyclopedia, subject to possible discussion on the talk page. Admin actions that can be required to prevent vandalism are page protection or semi-protection, or blocking the username or IP from editing, but that does not look to be warranted in this case. If you have any questions about anything, I would be happy to help. Also, please sign your posts with ~. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User Box
Hey, I liked your collection of userbox, do you know how to make thoses? (or have a link where teaches how to make them?) Thanks--Alumbrado07 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All I do is copy, and Paste the code I find in the Edit page. Magnum Serpentine 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for help from Mods
I request assistance in dealing with a situation on the UFO and in general, all paranormal articles that have been edited by Skeptics. The question is... Has WikiProject Rational Skepticism gone too far in their edits against Paranormal? In the latest edits for example, to the UFO article, they have called organizations like MUFON unreliable yet many news organizations like MSNBC go to them with their questions. MUFON has an established procedure in investigating UFOS. Law Enforcement also refers cases to MUFON. I request help from the Mods and for them to look at such articles under Paranormal to make sure all viewpoints are represented and that there has been no editing in bad faith. Thank you Magnum Serpentine (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this can be taken care of without an admin's help. Just ask around on the WikiProject, and let the members of that project know your opinion. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am officially with-drawing from the UFO issue. I have had some health issues that took me away from the matter for a long time and I feel too much time has passed and so I am with-drawing and moving onto other projects Magnum Serpentine (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for help, again, on the UFO article
I do not know what else to do. I have tried to reason with them about who gets to edit the article, and about allowing all viewpoints to have a say in the article. It now seems the skeptics have muscled everyone else off the project. Today I went there to see what the latest news was and wham, whole sections of comments by the UFO article editors were struck through. There was a vote taken on merger and all the opposed votes were struck through except mine now that gives the Skeptics a victory and they can begin merging the articles. I don't know what to do at this point. I have two options, continue to try to fight to save the article UFO so it will be neutral or give up and let the skeptics basically make the article UFO a clone of an article found on the Skeptical Inquirer's web page. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Open a WP:MEDCAB case ...... Dendodge  .. Talk Help 21:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If this is a regular dispute - I'd suggest some form of WP:DR (medcab is a reasonable option). If there is policy violation - you might want to bring it up on WP:ANI.
 * I hope this helps.
 * p.s. "Fighting" is not the right way to handle things (see: WP:BATTLE).
 * Good luck,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok mediation will be it.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

quick note: I fixed the parties links on the medcabal case that you opened --Enric Naval (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please contact me regarding this situation: ubc_kfq@hotmail.com ? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.224.233 (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe everything about the situation is posted at the mod page. Check out UFO and select talk on the moderation menu Magnum Serpentine (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I gave you my email because I was banned from wiki after my participation in the debate and since then, I have no other way to discuss the matter (I am currently on a friend's computer) I believe that I was blocked to influence the results of the debate 74.58.224.233 (talk)


 * I have with-drawn from the article. I had some major health issues come up. They almost landed me in the hospital. Thanks for helping Magnum Serpentine (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply
I have replied to your message: User talk:King of Hearts. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

News
I am now a member of the project. Hope to sign up for other editing sections Magnum Serpentine (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have with-drawn from the Trivia Clean Up because I do not see why we need to remove Trivia from the articles. Trivia makes the various articles in Wikipedia fun to read. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands
Hello. I noticed that you added the template: User WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands to your page. I realize that you might not know that that doesn’t necessarily make you a member automatically. If you would be willing, could you please add your name here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands. Thanks a lot and have a good day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have deleated all my user boxes. I feel, in my opinion, that Wikipedia is no longer an on-line encyclpedia for everyone to edit and use. I see to many policies being issued for the most bizzare thing that have now made the encyclopedia not fun to read. I wonder how many articles by the public have been deleated because some elitist felt they were not good enough or because there were no references to the subject on 3 continents. I deeply oppose all the policies that have been made up for the year articles. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)