User talk:Truth Mom

I am thinking a good article to write would be the experience I am having with Wiki. The quest that brought me here and the things I have taken notice of. --Truth Mom (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each day I am learning more and more upon this quest. I am enlightened by the ways and actions of many. The things I am observing are absolutely amazing that they take place in this day and age of what is known as our world. --Truth Mom (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. PhanuelB did an excelent job of pointing out vital information that is currently excluded from the article. He lists everything and provides sources. PhanuelB was banned for his efforts. The info is toward the bottom of this long discussion page. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhanuelB&action=historysubmit&diff=405159511&oldid=405089368 BruceFisher (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodgravy, is all I can say :)--Truth Mom (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pie.jpeg

Truth Mom (talk) has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Truth Mom (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truth Mom has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Floor plan

Hi, and thanks for the talk page message, which I understand relates to this reply that I made on the subject of the floor plan. The debate has now gone on for so long, with so many comments made, that I'm not surprised that you're finding it increasingly difficult to respond - the edit link for the relevant talk page section is much further up the page. Exactly what is going to be done regarding the image is difficult to forecast - editors who have contributed to the discussion are very split over its advantages and disadvantages. My opinion - currently - is that a diagram would be useful (an "eye focus" for better understanding, as you state), but that it would also benefit from scale for the purposes of accuracy. This is solely my view, and I don't really have anything more to offer to the discussion myself. Navigating and editing the talk page can certainly prove to be rather frustrating, with little sign of progress being made - I'm sorry that the atmosphere there is often highly charged. Nevertheless, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia so far. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Best wishes, Super Mario Man 05:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You can start a new talk page discussion by clicking this link - it takes you straight to editing box. Super Mario Man 16:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be concerned about the new section being off-topic - on the contrary, I think that pretty much all who have edited the talk page recently (me included) can draw some lessons from it. Super Mario Man 18:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Welcome and that is understandable, and that is a DISCUSSION. Fighting gets nowhere except heated tempers causing bigger issues. It takes more muscles to frown then to smile. :)--Truth Mom (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MoMK

Yup, I will stick around, though I have other articles I want to focus on over the weekend. You're not doing anything wrong, per se, and I totally agree with the idea that people should have a nice cup of tea and step away. On the other hand some of your comments were a little off the wall :) (i.e. the kids bit). It isn't a problem, the main issue is you will find regular editors tend to roll their eyes at such things :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is understandable but as Mr. Wales knows and some of the other editors, I happen to have a 14 year old child, actually studying this case in school as a class. I do not want them to have or obtain a view of Wiki, that is negative. Their words have been" These are suppose to be adults on here and there is more fighting here then we have ever seen " So sometimes it takes the one person speaking up and saying, hello.... we need to think and look,this could be our own siblings or family, or neighbor kids :) It is also no secret in any part of our world, its a natural for Mom to be a peace keeper and try to calm any feuds :)--Truth Mom (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Meant with complete humor) You & your kids have obviously never seen a session of British Parliament have you?

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truth Mom; believe me, sometimes I've stopped in the middle of a discussion and thought "I've just written over 1,000 words just to discuss whether a single word should be used over another". Unfortunately it is the case that minutae is what comes under most dispute. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I have not, but I have seen worse Im sure, I have seen the US congress in action :) HAHAHAHA especially with the current events.. " We're going to shut down" hahaha really? Let me clarify that for them. " Were going to make a bigger mess" : )

I understand where you both coming from on the discussion part but it is a war zone I feel and it is out of hand in ways. We just need to have some strong neutrals on it and get everything in order. I know many things, but I do not dare put them out there as I do not want to be in the feud, no telling what may or may not come out of my mouth :) I really do appreciate the effort of both of you and Thank you kindly of it :)--Truth Mom (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For most of us it's probably not the first controversial article, you get used to it (not that that is necessairily a good thing). Julian Assange was extremely draining for a while. Thanks for being polite, constructive and approachable in discussion :) Even if I disagree with some of what you say, believe me, I will continue to listen because of that --Errant ^(chat!) 22:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PBS used to put parliament on late and follow it with Benny Hill. First, we got to laugh at parliament and then Benny Hill. With that said, parliament in action (notice the rolling caption at bottom related to Kercher/Knox) and then World parliaments with Hill theme. Humor is good on-wiki, helps take the edge off...bourbon works, too. ;)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is hilarious...... I honestly in my way... do not have a clue how anyone in any government like ( I have seen) get anything actually accomplished... :) I have seen more accomplished with 2 guys sitting in a pub then 50 in a government building :) I do know of Benny Hill, I have watched that and it is hilarious just as well. Resembles "Our" government shutdown of next week........ hahahahaha As I said above, all it will do is make a bigger mess, they can't just shut down, I am blonde and can figure that one out :)

I would like to contribute more on the page, but the fighting is really a distraction and makes you think NOPE......... :) Im not here to do the fantango with the arguers : ) --Truth Mom (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Martini's help... :)--Truth Mom (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ErrantX has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Yum! :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article sections

Hello again. The article does include a section for related court cases here, and the TV film here. Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy also has its own article - since it hasn't been broadcast in the UK, I haven't seen it and don't really know much about it, but the article gives information about the kind of reception that the film received and attempts to have it withdrawn, etc. Super Mario Man 16:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Ok Thank you, at the moment there are not one but two major lawsuits actually taking place, regarding this. There are also other unnamed ( for now) lawsuits in the works. To me that is all relevant,in assuming in reality, you cannot just make false claims or leave false information to be shown to the world. --Truth Mom (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! SuperMarioMan is from the UK. I am shocked! BruceFisher (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppet accusations

I know it's hard to avoid responding when you have just been insulted, but in this case it's probably best to remain silent. Can you remover your last comment? If the troll restores the accusations, I will simply delete them and give the troll a formal warning on his talk page. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wasn't sure if I was allowed to or not, I just posted on the admins wall asking him to do so, I didn't know he closed it. --Truth Mom (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just took it out, Thank you kindly :) --Truth Mom (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's also nice that you signed the pledge Jimbo put on the article talk page. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I have been saying from my initial post, this is drama like a playground. This is NOT the place. --Truth Mom (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be thankful they haven't expanded MoMK too much

I am enjoying your comments, in various discussions, where you remind people to focus on editing the article, not attacks. However, I am glad that they are moving slow, because actually, the Italian courts found several reasons why they judged each of the 3 suspects as guilty, and if those reasons were truly included by expanding the article (by opponents actually editing rather than arguing), I fear they would still argue to re-slant the balance so that the actual reasons the court found Knox guilty would be expanded, exaggerated, or hyped, while reasons the others were judged guilty would be reduced (as "WP:UNDUE details") or removed (as "need 2nd source to show that reason was important") or other arguments you have seen in their debate arsenals. Consequently, if they focused on editing, they would eventually add, or embellish, the reasons Knox seemed to be guilty while removing other text to "cut to the chase" that they want Knox to seem to be the major ring-leader of 2 guys ("helpless puppets") who lived in Italy, for years, while Knox had only been there only 6 weeks. As her parents noted, just before Knox came to Italy, she had insisted they rescue an injured bird which was taken to an animal rescue. Then 2 months later, somebody happy with knives attacked Kercher, and guess who is the least likely to have held a knife? I wish the article could describe more evidence of what really happened, but that would require a spirit of true analysis of the sources, and that requires friendly, honest cooperation. I have just been trying to get cooperation on the details that describe Guede's slam-dunk conviction, but they would not even allow that. -Wikid77 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am in full agreement with that. My point was that why they continue to just stir havoc, in reality , they have not contributed to the article. So hence, my term, this is not a playground. They continue to just make it a playground, and therefore shine through the true intent they are placing. They could care less of Dear Meredith in any of this, to them it is just a playground bully mentality. This is being done by the same ways all over the internet, thus I feel since it so low a number really that are actually doing it, they shine clearly out, with the "LOOK AT ME" type personality. Childish is the word for that, hateful, and lack of any upraising morals within them. They never give thought, that one day in the distant years, It could actually be a daughter they have, get so brutally murdered. They remind me of young punk kids that "know it all" yet they really don't know anything. This internet is a huge deal, and in reality, they talk down as if they know just whats what, well in reality, they really don't know who is actually who, and what they keep planting are seeds, that can always come back on them in ways they are not sure. The attitude of their smarter then the rest, is a clear clue to their thinking. Something in my opinion has NO place upon Wikipedia. I don't happen to care what they think of me, they for one DO NOT know ME, nor do they actually KNOW who I may actually be. I do attempt to enlighten them, with the here is the TRUTH of the matter and your actions and what they portray of your words. Here is a clear example of a recent findings words, this clearly reflects their attitudes through my eyes, Quoted: "Honestly, I hope they give the bitch the electric chair just so we can stop hearing about it."

All in all they are like children left to run a muck... I as well have a question concerning a book used as a RS. The one of John Follain. It is hard for me to understand this, Follain's book appears to have been published in 2010 with a new edition coming out in Aug 2011. It is absolutely impossible to buy a copy, I've tried hard to get a copy and it just can't be bought. So how can we make claim that IT came out, when it is of no availability? --Truth Mom (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that reminder that it seems like posting by the same people on other websites. One editor here did, in fact, self-identify as one of those off-site editors, so you have some evidence, from him, that people are editing both here and insulting Knox on other websites. I think, now, we should focus on expanding Knox's bio page here, based on the many reliable news stories about her, as an honors student, playing guitar, singing, majoring in Italian/German, studying Chinese, Raffaele sending her yellow flowers for her 21st birthday, other inmates helping her when she cried, her plans to hike around Italy, all the things she and Meredith did together (Mojitos with Lumumba), the continual news coverage of her birthdays in jail (even though not blood-filled tabloid events), and her reactions to the Lifetime (TV network) film, because those are what so many reliable sources are saying about her. That focus gives a way forward, as you suggested, to at least edit and expand some text, rather than their current bickering with WP:BATTLEground mentality. I like your continued optimism here, and your belief that opponents would change if they knew a girl treated that way. -Wikid77 18:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page vandalism

I've just logged in and discovered what has happened. I agree that the situation is awful, although thankfully all of the disruptive edits made have been suppressed quickly and both the article and talk page have been protected indefinitely to prevent reprisal attacks. Really, all of this is just dire, and in light of the severity of this latest episode I'd argue that there can be no possibility of removing the protection for the foreseeable future - this whole area is now just too much of a minefield. Super Mario Man 00:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading files

Hi. In answer to your question, to upload a saved PDF file to Wikipedia, you would need to follow the instructions at this form. PDF files do exist on Wikipedia, but this particular format is not one of the most common. There are some important things to consider before transferring the file. May I ask what it discusses or relates to, and what you would intend it to be used for? Which section(s) of the article would it complement? Furthermore, assuming that it has already been published somewhere online (and is therefore not free content), please be aware that you would need to be able to explain how the upload qualifies as fair use of copyrighted material when uploading. I would also recommend a glance at Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files. Wikipedia's image and multimedia policies have the potential to be very confusing, so please feel free to ask if you have any additional questions. Regards, Super Mario Man 02:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your email. Yes, in answer to the question that you asked, please feel free to do so - I'd appreciate it. Regards, Super Mario Man 02:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to a circus?

Thus far I haven't seen as many acts at a 3 ring circus as I have been witnessing....... hmmmmmm--Truth Mom (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Hi Truth Mom. You may have missed it but there is a question there about what the previous account you edited under was called? You mentioned it here in your very first edit when you asked Jimbo to look at the MoMK matter. It would be courteous and reduce the drama caused by speculation if you could divulge this information. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User subpage

Hi - I've read this. The user subpage in question, User:Pablo X/spa, is a list of what, on Wikipedia, are known as Single-Purpose Accounts (SPAs) - users who contribute to only a select number of articles or pages. Such articles or pages are often related to only one topic. Pablo X's page isn't intended to serve as some sort of "hit list" or a place to dig into other people's personal lives - it's really just a record of the general editing patterns of some other Wikipedia users. The connotations of the term "SPA" aren't necessarily negative, because users who edit at one topic may do so in a collegial and constructive manner. However, in general, SPAs are often more inclined than non-SPAs to make edits that push POV in articles. I am not suggesting that this last point is true of you - your edits to MoMK have all been at the talk page, and it's been great to collaborate with you. I can appreciate that there is often a lot of arguing on talk pages - unfortunately, since Wikipedia is a collaborative project focused on discussion, this is generally difficult to avoid, especially in the case of a controversial subject such as Murder of Meredith Kercher. I've been editing here since 2006, and this can still frustrate me from time to time. I hope that this helps to answer your question. Super Mario Man 23:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words at my talk page. You can make a custom signature (multi-coloured, different fonts, etc.) at Special:Preferences - there's a box in which to put code (also called "wiki markup"). It's rather complicated to explain how code works - for the sake of an example, here's the code that forms my signature:

'''[[User:SuperMarioMan|Super]][[User talk:SuperMarioMan|Mario]][[Special:Contributions/SuperMarioMan|Man]]''' produces Super Mario Man

Your signature must include a link to either your user page or your user talk page (and possibly also your contributions page - I use the three coloured parts of my username to link to each). The example signature that I've come up with below (not that you need to use this one!) is similar to mine, and links to your user page and user talk page, but is pink and purple. It uses different font colours, but not different fonts (do ask if you'd like to use something other than the standard font). The text is in bold.

'''[[User:Truth Mom|Truth]] [[User talk:Truth Mom|Mom]]''' produces Truth Mom

You could try studying how the code functions in these two examples and then come up with something more creative, if you wish. Super Mario Man 03:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. Thanks for the WikiPie! Super Mario Man 03:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Truth Mom. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Super Mario Man 20:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for emailing back. Super Mario Man 06:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I couldn't find welcome to the circus.... and today well it has been one of those days hahahahaha This works well :)

Listen and rock :)--Truth Mom 05:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]