User talk:Systemglitch

Dear Systemglitch,

Was your request "not to monopolize this article" about the Indigo Children addressed to me? Or was it addressed to someone else? I found it a bit insulting because it goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. All I ever did on that page was correct a bunch of horrendous grammar mistakes. Also, I removed some original research re: Harry Potter that many others have removed before and the person just reposts.

No one "owns" wiki articles, but there is also no limit on the amount of editing that a person can contribute. That is not "monopolizing" that is just "participating". Also, because it is hard for me to see the changes as they will appear, I save after very small edits, just to see. Thus it might appear that I am doing more than I am. But I have to say that it is rude and out of place for you to demand that others not participate.

I am hoping that you are just new here and that you will come to understand how the Wiki works and that you will enjoy working on articles with other people as part of am ongoing interactive experiment for the benefit of all.

Thanks,  S a u d a d e 7  23:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Yes, Wooty really did butcher your contributions, and not in a beautiful sushi/carpaccio way. Many of those grammar mistakes were a result of Wooty's edits. Well, I am glad you aren't mad at me. I admit that I don't really know anything about the IC, except for something I heard on a late-night radio show once, but sometimes I just add a connection that I see from elsewhere without making any claims for the relevance of that connection or else I just fix grammary things. Mostly I am procrastinating and getting rid of anxiety as I write grant proposals this week. Good luck, sorry if I sounded harsh. Take care.  S a u d a d e 7  01:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of material on Indigo children
If you have a problem with my contributions on Indigo children kindly bring them up on my talk page. As it stands then the page was full of uncited claims that reeked of original research. You rephrased said uncited claims and added even more uncited claims - separately addressing the grammar issues is fine, but adding to the already difficult task of referencing something that looks like a proponent of the "movement" added is not. The deletion is fine, as would be leaving it up with a reftag but that list has been there for quite a while with absolutely no references. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 05:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Systemglitch, Here's what I just wrote to Wooty. I hope my edit will make both of you happy.


 * Hello, I am the disinterested 3rd party and I wanted to say that I added some claims to that Indigo Children site. I referenced them and put them in a block quote. I got involved because, despite the fact that I don't even believe in Indigo Children, I took offence when I thought Systemglitch was angry with me for correcting grammar. As it turns out I think s/he is just sad that her or his edits were being erased but she/he didn't seem to understand how to just cite them. So that's where I stepped in. The source, an Indigo Child website, might not be ideal, but it has been used before on that page. I don't believe in the Bible either, but you have to go to Christian sources to see what they're thinking so this is just a matter of fringe degrees I think. If you are not happy with this compromise I won't pursue it further and you can just delete my changes. However, I think they should stand for the welfare of all concerned. Have a nice evening.  S a u d a d e 7  20:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

References Added...
Now what do you guys think of it? It seems to be improving with every step and change.
 * Looks good to me! - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 23:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)