- Take a look at the New contributors' help page, the Wikipedia Tutorial and the Manual of Style, and If you still need any help, you can always post your question at the Help Desk.
- When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia and Assume good faith, but please keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
- Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
- Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!
And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, Trevmar, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 19:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You aren't helping yourselfEdit
I'm trying to help make sure that the biography on you is of high quality. I feel that the answers you are giving to things that I write are not particularly helpful to you. I think you might want to be more simple and direct with answers, because the people who think you are a crackpot are only fueled when you give what appear to you (perhaps) to be clever answers but appear to me (I'm sorry to say) evasive and unhelpful.
Someone has accused your work of amounting to a rejection of the Germ theory of disease. That's an easy charge for you to simply refute, and then we'd be done with that part of this. Just say "Actually, I very much agree that germs are the cause of many diseases. Nothing about my work suggests otherwise. I also happen to agree with mainstream science that many diseases are caused by things other than germs. I consider it outrageous that such an accusation has been leveled at me."
That'd be clear and to the point and would help everyone resolve the issue.
When you play around verbally, it doesn't help me to help make sure the article about you is accurate. So please try to be more simple and to the point.
What might be helpful, and you can email me if you prefer (use the e-mail this user link on my user talk page), is if you list for me whatever you regard as the 3 sentences in the article that I might most productively focus my attention on. That's just a start, I know, but it would be helpful. What in the article is false or misleading or inconsistent with the facts as put forward in reliable sources? Things that are easily refuted are the easiest place to start. And be simple and to the point, no games.