User talk:Timothy Campbell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful


Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 17:43, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Your question regarding adding personal web pages as links

As community policy, it is not generally accepted that any user should add his own web pages. It is considered vanity or an advertisement for their page. (No accusations against you but I agree with the policy to avoid all of us, including me, adding our own web pages.) In addition, it is inadvisable to add user home pages (from AOL and such) that are not considered authority sites and can be down or changed without warning. - Tεxτurε 17:54, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My Reply to the Above

Okay, thanks for that tip. I won't make that mistake again. Of course, if you feel inspired to add the link to my Internet Trolls article to Internet Trolls, be my guest!

I think the prevailing attitude towards AOL sites is understandable, but it's still more credible than GeoCities. In addition, I have hosted my web pages on AOL since 1995 and continue to do so because they are much more reliable than any other ISP I've ever used. I'm not a shill for AOL, but I do like to give credit where it's due. I'm very pleased with their service, support and pricing. --Timothy Campbell 15:50, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

[edit] Antiprocess

Welcome to Wikipedia. Don't worry too much about "doing something horrendously wrong." Be bold.

The discussion will continue on vfd for several days, during which time you or anybody else is perfectly free to improve the article; frequently these discussions end with a lot of comments of "Keep, in current form" or "Fine now." In my opinion, what you need to do is decide which of the three definitions is really the topic you meant to write on, and add a little bit of coherent explanation and commentary, and a {{stub}} notice. Three or four good sentences would probably be enough. Then you can keep adding to it. But you have to say something about antiprocess, not just give a dictionary definition of the term. See Wikipedia:Perfect stub article for more. Incidentally... there's an old maxim to the effect that the best way to get information from USENET is not to ask a question, but to post slightly inaccurate information. Strictly my own opinion again, but I believe this applies to Wikipedia as well. Obviously, you should try to submit accurate information, but a good stub doesn't need to be Holy Writ, it just needs to be a decent ranging shot.

By the way, if the article gets deleted it still doesn't mean you did anything wrong. Just consider it the extreme case of having your writing "mercilessly edited." Dpbsmith 20:54, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Welcome! You seem to have a great attitude and obvious passion for helping people to grow in their knowledge, so you should fit in really well. That's as opposed to fit in perfectly, even if you don't have any rough edges (and you're showing none, I'm impressed) the rest of us have plenty (;-> to make up.

I'm not sure how to save the antiprocess article. Is there any evidence that the term is accepted and used by others in the way that you do? If it's a notable theory however weird that's a keeper, and this is not a weird one at all IMO, I find your page fascinating and insightful. Andrewa 23:10, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My Reply to the Above

I hope this is the correct way to respond to a message. Live and learn, I guess.

First off, I can see that I'm going to have a lot of trouble telling people that antiprocess is not a "theory" but a definition. I am not claiming to have discovered anything new. Indeed, the most common criticism of my antiprocess concept is that it's blindingly obvious. (My response, by the way, is that everyone also knows what ad hominem is, but it's hard to talk about it if nobody's given it a name.)

Second, it does seem to me that it may be inappropriate for me to write about antiprocess on Wikipedia. While I did try to give the alternative definitions, the bottom line is that there is no such word in the dictionary, few people besides me are writing about it, and you'll note that I put my definition in the #1 spot. As such, this amounts to little more than a vanity entry.

In my defense, I thought it was something that was wanted on Wikipedia, because I spotted it in a list of "Wanted Wiki Words" while searching Google for alternative definitions. I did not then know that "dicdefs" didn't belong here.

I'll read up on stub articles, but if the word is deleted in the meantime, that's okay. --Timothy Campbell 15:50, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

Hi Timothy. I just wanted to say hi from a fellow OSSCI member! TimothyPilgrim 20:15, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)