User talk:David.alex.lamb

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, David.alex.lamb! Thanks for adding the Wikilink over on the Creativity article. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
When you have time, you can peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and Assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, David.alex.lamb, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 07:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Fictional scientists" subcategories

These are useful distinctions to make and should help keep the category from getting out of hand, it's good that you came up with them. However, going by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), I believe the category names should plural. Aitch Eye 07:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. OK, I'll change them. Can't move a category, so it will be a bit of work to go back over everything, but I can manage that. --David.alex.lamb 16:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metanarrative

Hi David, is it still your opinion that the metanarrative article requires improvement? What do you think needs to be done? Thanks, --Nicholas 15:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything has changed, has it? So, yes, I still think it requires a small improvement; it's not NPOV to define a relatively complex concept then assert it inherently has negative connotations. The basic idea is to define metanarrative without the perjorative connotation, then put most of the article in a postmodern interpretation section that includes, for example, the quote about hostility to metanarratives. I don't think it has to be a real big change to what's there. It might be easier for me to simply do it rather than explain it (there's always the revert feature if someone hates it). --David.alex.lamb 17:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

For Bobby's poor behavior regarding Ultra scientist. From what I've seen of him, he appears to mean well, but he also jumps the gun quite a bit. Please don't let him discourage you from helping with Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It only hurt for a moment. David.alex.lamb

As a side note, you might be amused by the terminology my writer friends and I use to denote the distinction between realistic-in-the-context technology and "ultra" technology -- AM/FM. That stands for Actual Machines vs. F*ckin' MAGIC!!! =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. But of course it's 'original research' ... David.alex.lamb

I'm afraid I can't claim it's original with us, but yeah, it'd probably be original research or, if not that, a non-notable neologism. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]