User talk:Juggantic

First edit ever was Dan Brown's talk page. Yahoooooooo.

Backmasking[edit]

If you think the external link you added and I removed from the article Backmasking is notable I suggest finding it mentioned in publication and finding a link other than a FaceBook page. If you feel the article needs improvement I wholeheartedly encourage you to find some reliable sources and make edits based on the content in those sources. In the future please conduct discussions about WikiPedia on the talk pages of the appropriate article or a user talk page such as this one, not via email. Thanks. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Skeptic. lol No offence in that by the way. OK. You say "If you think the external link you added and I removed from the article Backmasking is notable I suggest finding it mentioned in publication and finding a link other than a FaceBook page." I will never in my life time find anyone that would find that link to facebook notable. I am not wanting to enter into Wikipedia a link to facebook.

I was making a external link pointing out a device called The Original Syn that is used to reverse records as to be able to access backmasking. I think there is room in the article for it too, but not trying to do that at all, just linking to it as it is an invention that is specifically for backmasking. It is a patented item, not a person or some gossip from a chat room, and there is no other place that publicly displays this item.

Thanks.. - - Juggantic

First, see External links (EL): Links normally to be avoided item 10. A link to FaceBook is not appropriate. Second, I was not suggesting you find a reliable source (RS) that found the FaceBook link notable, how about an RS that finds this "device" or "invention" notable. If there is "no other place that publicly displays" or discusses this item it is not of interest enough to warrant an external link per EL. Third once an edit has been reverted it is not appropriate to redo the edit without discussion and consensus on the talk page of the article see BOLD, revert, discuss (BRD). Fourth opening your comment with an ad hominem attack on another editor is not the best way to present your case. Please focus your comments on content and editing not editors.

All that said, I'm not so worried about it. If you think you can make a case for including a FaceBook link to a product that is mentioned nowhere notable, by all means engage in a discussion on the talk page of the article. Perhaps others are familiar with the product and know of another site/source featuring/discussing it. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have moved this to the backmasking talk page.Thanks.. - - Juggantic

No worries, if the device/invention is mentioned in a newspaper article as the two in the article are someone should support including mention of the product or adding a link if one other than fb can be found (it's a tough sell to get a social network link added). Best wishes and I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MrBill3. Yes I am just looking through everything now, it also caught my eye that notability is for an article itself and not for the contents of an article, especially if its a minor edit and not a part of the main article. I also intended to use that link as verifiability as its a official page to the invention that I am linking it to, which is makes it an interest of the article about backmasking because it's an invention specifically made for backmasking. As for verifying it, can I not use the Patent Office if need be? It was also used on RRR Radio Station here is Australia around 1994, but that is if I want to make an article about it that is. The link to networking sites is "normally" not for such a thing, but will try as it's purpose is and always has been for backmasking. Thanks for your help and stick with me as I enjoy the steep learning curve as it forces me to learn. And no offence meant with the skeptic chat. You would never take it the wrong way if I worded it properly or had spoke face to face... - - Juggantic

July 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Da Vinci Code have been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]