User talk:Mark9946

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --Bongwarrior 19:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

you're confusing spam for true resource
This is not "spam". Spam is undesired advertising. The article edit provides

A) Useful information B) Know-how that is available nowhere else C) A link to a resource that is HIGHLY relevant to the topic

Under the circumstances, the content is desired, and it is not advertising. If it were advertising, it would read "Buy this. Features Features Features. Buy this"

I am new at posting on wikipedia, so I may have missed a formatting theme of the site. I am more used to regular HTML with formatting following what is easiest and most convenient for the viewer to read.

If you have a suggestion of format modifications, let's hear it, but don't be so quick to jump to conclusions about something you have not thoroughly examined nor understood.


 * With all due respect, I believe I was well within my bounds to remove them. If that website has useful information, add it to the article. Revisions that are mainly intended to promote a website will always be removed by someone. See WP:EL for more information about Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. Take care. --Bongwarrior 19:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The information could not be added to the article because it is A)Not free of charge B)Under Copywrite and C)can only be obtained through that website. That website is the only way on the planet to access that information, and under Wikipedia's guidelines, adding a link is the only way to make such information available to the general public.--Mark9946 19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Eidetic memory. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gscshoyru 19:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Under Wikipedia's guidelines for external links, the content that was referred to in the article edits can only be linked to and not included because A) It is Copyrighted, B) It is not free of charge and C) It is ONLY available through that website. The website is the access portal to an Ebook that contains information not available anywhere else on the planet. You are making a big mistake, and I would like to work with you to get this resource available to the community. I am not aware of whatever unwritten rules regarding formatting that this site may have, so if that is the issue, speak more directly of it. Stop with your threats and accusations, and pay attention to the real content at hand.--Mark9946 19:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your edits are spam, they are advertisements for a book to help you improve memory. It isn't a source the way you presented it, it's a glowing review, which is not WP:NPOV and counts as spam. However, it is possible you do not understand this, so I'm not going to give you the next level warning unless you do it again. Please read WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV and WP:V for a better undestanding of this and how to cite sources. Thank you. Gscshoyru 21:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are ignorant. This is a fact. You are inattentive. This too is a fact. You have no control over your emotions. This too you will most likely prove to be a fact. You are quick to label a resource as "spam" without examining it as necessary. What you label a "glowing review" is merely fact. If I am being blunt, it is only to be clear. You choose not to edit posts. You choose to eliminate them entirely. Is that what wikipedia is all about? A limitation of who contributes? If you so believe me to be mistaken as to the exact verbiage I use to depict the facts about memory, I invite you to examine the details as thoroughly as you know how and then find someone to tell you where you missed a spot, check again, and then if you still believe that it is in fact spam, then please, don't hesitate to remove it. Until then however, I suggest you get your facts straight, being how you struggle to comprehend, let alone be capable of spelling a word as simple as understanding.--Mark9946 02:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A review, by definition, is an opinion. Not a fact. You are advertising this book, and such a thing has no place in an encyclopedia. You're not presenting facts about memory. You're presenting your ideas about the content of the book. Such a thing is in fact spam.
 * And if you think a single spelling mistake is bad... well... see some of the other vandalism on my talk page. Additionally, I think WP:CIVIL might be an enlightening read for you. Gscshoyru 02:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * After having thoroughly reviewed the resources you mentioned, your words are rather shallow. You are incapable of realizing the meaning of how this website operates, and in your infinite intelligent thinking ability, or rather, the lack thereof, you have robbed the community of valuable information that otherwise they would not know about. You follow the path of ignorance, and you are exactly the type of person who spends on this world, but never gives. If you truly valued the people who read information on this website, you would first consider the quality of information, and only after thoroughly thinking that through would you consider you next move in editing content. Your current actions are a disservice. I can only hope that you understand even a fraction of what I just said.--Mark9946 02:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Suppressing the truth on the premise of your own lack of understanding does nobody any good--Mark9946 02:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's pretend for a second that we both know what we're talking about - that we're both rational, free-thinking people. You know, for instance, that these contended edits have very little to do with "shining a beacon of truth" into the deluded minds of wikipedia-reading sheep. You're not a prophet... get over it. Therefore, there's really no point in continuing this discussion. If you're smart enough to insult other peoples' intelligence, you should be smart enough to figure out where I'm coming from.
 * As for robbing the community of valuable, privately-owned, corporate-driven information - how about all the time I've wasted changing your errors and debating senseless points of fact with you? You can quibble and equivocate all you like - but you're wrong and you know it, so let's just move along. Making useful edits to wikipedia is great - that's what the site is for - but it's not for personal soapboxes and promotions. Gscshoyru 03:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I know this: You just flamed me. I also know you're full of the the steamy stuff that comes out of a horse's rear end. Get over yourself already. The government isn't out to get you. As for the content of the edits, they're not spam. If you had stopped acting offended and started examining the content, you will have found that what I added is not about being right or wrong. It has nothing to do with opinion either. It is fact, as by definition fact is that which is in and of itself true, and under the condition of being in synchrony with the real-world attempts to verify it, it holds true. Go back and show me where it's a promotion. Be sure to speak up when you do.--Mark9946 03:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Yeah... I just flamed you. And I shouldn't have. I let your childish, unfounded, and irrelevant attacks on my intelligence get to me, and I shouldn't have. Facts you want, and facts you'll get:

"It's the most thorough and reliable manual published as of July 2007. The editors of this site appear to be incapable of realizing real resources..."

Ignoring the obvious attack in the second sentence, "the most thorough and reliable" ? According to whom? And no matter who thinks that, it still isn't encyclopedic content, because it's an opinion any way you think of it.

"Explode Your Memory Ebook - The most thorough manual anywhere on memory. Explains in detail how memory works, where things go wrong, what affects your memory, and everything there is to know about improving your memory. Not just theories - only real-world practical methods and know-how that anyone can use."

There's that "most thorough" again. "everything there is to know" Everything? I'm willing to bet that there's something that's not in that book that you can know... but that might just be me. Maybe your book does in fact include every little factoid about memory, discovered or not. This is exaggerated, advertisement-like language.

"anyone can use" -- opinion, advertisement-like language again.

This: Whole edit has an unencyclopedic tone, directed at "you." The whole thing is exaggerated ("If you want to find out how to develop your memory, the ONLY place on the net where you can learn how to do this is through www.ExplodeYourMemory.com") and is an obvious advertisement for this book. And even assuming that everything said is true,  it still doesn't belong. If you were to cite portions of the book, explaining ways to improve your memory, as described there, your edits might possibly be welcomed. But simply stating that this book improves memory adds nothing to the article -- the only way they'll get the "tantalizing" information you advertise is by "investing in themselves," as the site puts it.

Feel free to contest any of my points, they might be a little shaky toward the end. Oh, and one other thing. The next time you decide to disparage my thinking ability or liken me to horseshit, I will report you for personal attacks, kay? I admit my attack won't look good, because I let my anger take hold of me, but your attacks should have gotten you banned by the second comment. Gscshoyru 03:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now there's something to work with. Try this for size:

Memory is a skill that can be developed
Just like any other skill or action, it is necessary to have an understanding of memory in order to work with it efficiently. Though biological explanation for human memory systems have been traced to neural networks which make up the brain and other communication systems within the body, this is not particularly useful to an individual wishing to improve their memory. Sometime in May 2007, an ebook called "Explode Your Memory" was released which depicts the "software" (analogy to computers) aspect of memory; mainly the part of memory which is within the scope of a person's observation abilities and can be dealt with on an individual level. This stems from the concept of a person always being the cause of his/her own thoughts, and therefore being capable of working with them. The following is based on information from the book: The reason why some people appear to be "gifted" in terms of memory is because on a subconscious level, they learned very early on how memory works and automatically incorporated that knowledge into their everyday thought processes, thereby improving memory. However, this is not something out of reach for any person who tries, being that memory functions in exactly the same way in every human being. Therefore, assuming reasonable health, it can be developed just the same regardless of the individual in question. In "Explode Your Memory", the author covers how memory works, the process every individual memory (referring to single event) goes through, and intensive coverage of how this can be improved upon, in a way that's natural to anyone who tries. It is natural because the brain functions in essentially the same way from person to person, and the primary factor in strength of memory is in the person's understanding of how to use memory, which is learned subconsciously at an early age, or consciously through education or personal observations. Most people already have "photographic memory". Think of a red apple. Stop and really think of a red apple. Does it have a leaf? Can you spin it around in your mind? Consider this for a moment. If there were an apple, and it was spinning around, what would it look like? The experience you just went through in your mind most likely included an image popping into your head. This was an example of your photographic memory abilities. The only problem is the level of details falls below satisfactory levels, so the general assumption is therefore that the skill does not exist. The ability is there, but it needs to be developed to improve the level of detail, which in most cases is the primary criterion of memory strength.

This is of course based on what I read in the book, with permission from the author to add it in. I'm not sure how to reference to books, so if you know how, maybe you can write it correctly. Here's the specs:

Book Title="Explode Your Memory - A Total Manual To Memory Mastery" Author=Duke Xenner Publish Date=May 2007 Web Address="www.explodeyourmemory.com"

I see your point on the 3rd person POV, and I could see where "anyone can use" can need some clarification. So "most" implies opinion? Okay, how then do you express that it covers more useful material (quantity is a scientific concept) than any other available resource? I have researched this, and that's the very reason why I bought this book in the first place. I just think that other people have the right to know it's out there, and it is possible that you're right in that it should be in the form of a reference instead of a direct statement. How do you suggest it be done?--66.3.224.17 19:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Closer to true... but still an advertisement. I don't have time to talk this second... but I will in a half hour or so. Also... please log-in when you talk, if you have an account (which you do). Otherwise it's hard to keep things straight. I'm gonna reply on the ip and your username, just to be sure. Gscshoyru 19:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry it took so long to get back to you... what I though would be short ended up taking a long, long time... but here I am now.
 * Look, I could continue on about this, how each little bit is POV'd and spammy... but that's not the point. Your piece simply reads like an ad... because it is one. If you opened your encyclopedia, and saw something like this, what would you think? Would you actually think that this is viable material? Unbiased information about memory? Because what you propose isn't about memory directly at all. It's about the book. And even in an improving your memory section, one cites methods -- not books. And though encyclopedias may give an overview of methods, it certainly doesn't give a walkthrough of them. And they certainly don't tell the reader what to do, as your second and third paragraphs do. And as for your specific questions... "most" isn't so much opinion is exaggeration -- it may be true, but can you prove it? Have you gone through every single other available resource in existence? Can you prove that you have? And is this fact listed in a verifiable source? I really don't think so.
 * And as for how it should be done... it really shouldn't be done at all. I'm not sure that this book counts as a verifiable source (please see WP:V). However, if it does in fact count as a verifiable source, then what you can do is add methods to the improving your memory section. However, it should be more of a list format than a cookbook -- and the book should not be mentioned at all in your edits. It should be cited (WP:CITE) properly, so that the little links next your methods lead to a link to the book at the bottom of the page. The book is simply not notable enough (yet?) for inclusion in the article. If it does in fact completely revolutionize the idea of memory, and becomes required reading for students, etc, all over the country, then you can add it as a notable book. But as of now, the book itself is simply not notable enough for inclusion, and therefore nearly any direct mentions would be spammy. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Sorry to put you down, I'm sure the book is wonderful, but I don't think it truly has a prominent in this or any other encyclopedia, yet. (P.S. If you really want to... you can make a new article directly on the book. Be careful to keep it neutral, though, because if you don't, plenty of others will have it deleted in a flash.) Gscshoyru 01:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)