User talk:ProudPrimate

Image copyright problem with Image:Ayn rand name.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Ayn rand name.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you.

In addition, this image would go up for deletion anyways, as it is an orphan; i.e., not linked to or used by any article. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 06:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

bunk
I have moved "Debunking Allen Dulles" to Talk:Allen Welsh Dulles/debunking. We do not put quote marks (") around titles. We do not discuss articles in the (Main) namespace. -- RHaworth 14:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As you guessed in your email, I am totally ignorant about AWD (and, possibly to my shame, not particularly interested). I was solely interested in Wikipedia conventions. You obviously have some strong ideas so try not to not mar your arguments by bad Wiki style.

Please note these edits: why did you unlink Hitler? OK, he may not need a link for the reader's benefit, but what about special:whatlinkshere/Adolf Hitler - to see there a link back to AWD is interesting. And using external link format for Wikilinks is pure newbie stuff.

I then removed your comment because it was in pure talk page style.

What I find amazing is that nobody has leapt in and commented on your "debunking" essay. My recommendation is, follow Wikipedia policy and be bold. Stop talking about proposed edits - go ahead and do them, carefully and in good Wikipedia style. Do not be surprised if they get reverted - at least you will have triggered the debate. -- RHaworth 09:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: [Debunking Allen Dulles]
Mr. Haworth —

much obliged for your comments I ultimately found in this section of my user page (so I judged this is the correct place for the reply.) This beautiful Wiki system is very complex and arcane, and I'm so overcommitted that I despair of learning all the finest points of style (salad fork, large fork, pickle fork, plate, spoon, knife, isn't it?)

You advised me to be bold and overwrite the other article, or as I call it, "whitewash", but it is crucial to the understanding of the matter that the very subject is of a piece with the whitewash. In fact, [Operation Mockingbird], initiated under AWD's directorate, was an entirely successful subversion of the mass media.

So, as I see it, the [AWD Wiki article] smacks of the same subversion, and merely replacing it destroys the crime scene:  the readers should be apprised of this loggerheads conflict, so my ideal was one of those, you know, yellow rectangles that says, "the objectivity of this article is disputed". Put another way, I'm reluctant to remove the offending material ("An early foe of Hitler...." — my apologies for inadvertantly losing the internal link between the floorboards -- I'll be more careful in future), because the reader needs to become involved in the argument, in order for the truth to come out.

The idea that one view must become the history ("We have always been at war with East Asia", as Orwell says), and the other version ("We have always been at war with Eurasia") must be expunged from all written records and slip down the Memory Hole, to my mind, destroys the chain of evidence which alone will enable the real truth to see daylight, in all its gory awfulness.

Now, as I say, I'm a great fan of Wikipedia, and would be loath to do it any damage. But I can't afford to spend weeks reading arcane lists of rules which make little sense without the experience of using them a few times. Was every adult born old?

The world is in serious danger, sir, right now, and trainspotting in the Midlands is less pressing than noting the tail markings on CIA rendition flights to undisclosed airbases in Poland, Rumania, even Britain. Have you noticed the cameras bristling on every street? Have you read the Downing Street Minutes? Do you wonder why, if he died from cutting an artery, so little of David Kelly's blood was evident when the EMT's first saw him?

I mention this as an excuse, I guess, for going a bit light on the formalities.

But let me state again my thanks for your genuine good-fellowship and your encouragement. I guess I would ask only this bit more -- if there are any shortcuts to where I need to get to, without reading the -- you're a programmer:  when you learn a new language, do you read the manual front to back? Or do you cut to the parts that are relevant to the project you have in mind? *1* If you take my meaning. . ..

Oh, and, is there any way to remove the ugly excess space after a link, and to avoid the ugly little bent staple sign that appears when such a link breaks over a line? I'd love to know.

-- ProudPrimate 14:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * *1* spot on mate - no of course you don't read the manual - you crib mercilessly! The problem however is that you are not cribbing carefully enough. Now I gave you above this link to what we call a "diff" report. A diff report takes only a little time to understand. If you had looked at it you would have seen that I changed "[Nazi]" into "Nazi" . That is, I changed an external-format link (with one level of redundant [] round it) into a proper wiki link. It also gets rid of the "bent staple". I hope you have got the point now. In fact that is really the only thing you need to learn about wiki markup. Believe it or not, experienced wiki editors do identify good-faith but technically poor edits and make due allowance.
 * (You can probably eliminate the "bent staple" from external links as well but that requires edits to your personal monobook.css - and even I don't know the details!)
 * So if you hesitate to be bold, why not spend a few hours (and it will take hours!) going through the edit history and find out who has put the wrong spin on the article. Contact them on their talk pages and, if they seem inactive, back it up with an email. -- RHaworth 15:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

hey
a lot of the links on your pages have gone dead * this is not useful * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.48.65 (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What links, where, and who sez?ProudPrimate (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Alert
Note that the chemtrail conspiracy theory is covered under the general heading of pseudoscience. Guy (help!) 15:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I wish I had the time and energy to become expert in these stylistic matters. I might simply have to abandon these issues, for now anyway. ProudPrimate (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)