User talk:Paulkmciver

Welcome!

Hello, Paulkmciver, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Mermaids: The Body Found have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or 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 other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! – MrX 21:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

interesting take on "mermaids, the body found"
Let’s clear this mermaid thing up once and for all. Let’s take the only two possible scenarios and look at what the Navy’s likely reaction would be to each: Scenario one: The show, “Mermaids, The Body Found” is a true story and was initially intended by Animal Planet to be aired as such; a true documentary. In this case, the Navy of course would have discovered well before show time that the presentation was being filmed and was to be aired at an upcoming date. Unquestionably, they would then have used their power and influence in Washington to contact and “convince” the people at Animal Planet (AP) that the show was not to be aired. AP would have then pitched a fit about depriving the public from this discovery not to mention all the money they stand to lose (money already spent with no resulting income) and would ask for a compromise. The Navy would probably then have eventually realized that a compromise was going to be necessary and said, “OK, go ahead and air the show, but with the stipulation you claim that the show contains some fiction” and that you also follow our orders to the tee hereafter. We are now in complete control.

In preparation for the airing of the show, the Navy would then have decided to keep quite in the public eye (as they have indeed done) and then implementat a massive and covert debunking program, both media and online, to further convince us (the public) that the show is fiction. And of course they would have all the help they needed from the people at AP, now completely under their control, and from anyone else they needed and found necessary to impose their power. This debunking program, having begun even before the filming was complete would have involved only a small handful of people to be controlled at the time making the job at hand very easy, and would have given us exactly what we have today which is the fact that generally speaking the gullible public is convinced from WHAT THEY HAVE LEARNED, READ, SEEN, AND HEARD on TV, online, and in the media that the show is mostly fiction. But, was the NAVY in control of all we have learned and will it continue to be in control of all we learn in the future on this matter? Perhaps so. Perhaps not. If in control, why would the Navy allow the production and airing of the show in the manner in which it was shown, which they knew would cause SOME damage to their reputation?

Scenario two: The show was intentionally mixed by AP alone with some fiction and some fact, but was aired, written, and produced in such a manner to fool the public into thinking the story is true. Would a highly successful and factual series such as AP have a motive to deceive their viewers like this? I think not, but if this is the case, then the Navy has been wrongly liabled and slandered and their reputation severely damaged in the public eye, and AP owes them an apology and a lot of money.

But what would be the Navy’s next step here in this case? First of all, if they are innocent they would sue AP to the fullest extent. Secondly, if innocent they would initiate a massive, but “open” rather than covert, widely publicized outrage at AP for what they have done! They would be infuriated and would be taking out ads on TV and online, etc., to express their anger and to loudly proclaim their innocence to the public. Interestingly, to my knowledge, the Navy has done neither of these! In other words, it is obvious that the Navy’s PUBLIC response to this program conforms in every form and fashion much more to a person being guilty as charged rather than to one who is completely innocent! I mean, where is your anger and outrage, Navy? Outrage that one would expect and for which you would certainly have justification if you were innocent? Something smells really “fishy” here? Deep thinking people like me, with the intelligence to realize that you, Navy, do most certainly have the power indeed to pull something off like this, especially with control early on, also realize that the very manner in which you have handled your PUBLIC response has almost certainly exposed the truth! It seems about 99% certain to me that YOU have exposed YOURSELVES and once again, as most all gov agencies have done, you have deprived “We, The People” from the truth!

Sadly, the already “convinced with insufficient evidence” gullible masses all over the world, including the media, unbeknown to them will actually never know with 100% certainty what has occurred here (unless a creature is found in the future and made public) because if the show is based on completely true events, the only people who know this will never be allowed to admit it. And in EITHER scenario above, we most CERTAINLY cannot believe anything we have read, seen, or heard from anyone online, on TV, or in the media, etc. in the past! Nor can we believe anything WHATSOEVER related to this in the future! The reason we can’t of course, in both cases past and future, is because we simply do not know for sure whether or not the Navy took complete control of this entire matter well before AP ever even finished filming the show when only a small handful of people knew that the show was even being filmed. There were very few people to be “convinced” and controlled at this particular time in order to make the debunking program a success, and with such a small number of people aware of the upcoming show to be “persuaded”, the Navy’s debunking program would have been a piece of cakeControl from conception before the masses or most media had any inkling about the show PERIOD!

One further comment, one might argue that my theory the Navy was in control at a very early stage contradicts ITSELF. “Why would the Navy, if in control from the beginning allow the production and airing of the show that actually aired (even though supposedly admitted by AP to be partially fictitious) which they knew would certainly do them some damage”, you might ask? I think the reason for this could easily be that AP put up one hell of a fight when first confronted by the Navy, and once they realized that they were going to have to bow and submit to the Navy’s power, they then replied, “Ok, we’ll go along with a false admission that the show is partially fiction, BUT, if we are going to be forced to do this, and deceive our viewers depriving them from the truth, then we are at least going to hire professional actors and have them tell the story with the same sincerity and accuracy with which it was originally related to us by the real scientists who made this magnificent discovery! Furthermore, we are at the least going to make it LOOK like to our viewers that the story is true. I think AP would be willing to suffer the consequences of some viewer criticism for appearing to have “fooled the public” just so they could AT LEAST get the story out into the public eye even though, thanks to the Navy, controversial it may be! With such a great reputation and integrity, for what possible other reason would AP intentionally damage their own credibility? For ratings and money? I don’t think so! Why destroy your credibilityone of the major ingredients for your success and risk an eventual resulting cancellation of the entire series? I think it’s highly plausible and likely they were forced to do this but bravely stood their ground at least enough to be able to get the Navy to also agree to take a little heat, and consequently these are the basic ingredients of the compromise that was agreed upon. In conclusion, the fact that the Navy’s PUBLIC response to this show conforms almost perfectly to scenario one with no public outrage or proclamation of innocence, and the fact that they had possible motive, and certain opportunity and capability, are extreme indications to me that perhaps some form of aquatic-human creatures might actually exist after all! One thing is for sure 100%: Time will tell my friends, Time will tell!

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Snowysusan 02:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page List of conspiracy theories has been reverted. Your edit here to List of conspiracy theories was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.facebook.com/mciverlivingston.paulk) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Auburn University, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Your edit here to Auburn University was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.facebook.com/mciverlivingston.paulk) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to War Eagle. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Your edit here to War Eagle was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.facebook.com/mciverlivingston.paulk) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mermaids Conspiracy Theory concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mermaids Conspiracy Theory, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mermaids Conspiracy Theory


Hello Paulkmciver. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Mermaids Conspiracy Theory".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)