From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm at UTC-8, North America, West Coast, California, Los Angeles. I'm not on wikipedia 24 hours a day or even every day so be patient. If you ask me a question I will eventually reply. SEND AN EMAIL if you need to contact me quickly for some reason.

Please leave messages related to specific articles on those articles 'discuss' pages, rather than here, and place a link to the article on this page.

Hey, want to do a quick task I can't do right now? [these links point to a disambiguation page], if you'd like to, make them point at the appropriate article. Do one, none, or many. Thanks

Contents 1 Helpful links 2 Archived Talk 3 Tools 3.1 Category tool 4 Messages: 4.1 Troll 4.2 sucks 4.3 APRIL FOOLS DAY 4.4 Warning 4.5 Pedant 4.6 citations 4.7 AWB 4.8 9/11 (discussion) 4.9 Due by date 4.10 Big Bertha 4.11 What is this? = Reply 4.12 Terry Teene Address 4.13 Editing other people's comments 4.14 Hello 4.15 Thanks. 4.16 More info 4.17 Hey 4.18 Rusty Harding

[edit] Helpful links

A synopsis of Wikipedia policies can be useful. If you have a problem, it helps to know what the relevant policy is. A gentle introduction to 'why we have rules when even the rules can be edited by anybody' can be found at Pillars of the Community.

Don't let 'problems' with other editors become disputes. Other editors are working on the same article you are for a reason... you have something in common! Instead of an edit war, try collaboration and maybe you will find some valuable help in improving the article. Those other editors are your colleagues, they deserve the same respect and assistance as you do.

[edit] Archived Talk

Archive 01 2004-11-19/ Archive 02 2004-11-24/ Archive 03 2005-01-14/ Archive 04 2005-02-27/ Archive 05 2006-03-22/ Archive 06 2006-08-19/ Archive 07 2006-08-19/ Archive 08 2007-06-07/ Archive 09 2008-03-30

[edit] Tools

[edit] Category tool

Using: <categorytree>TheNameOfACategory</categorytree> you can place a Category Tree, rooted in any category, on a page:

[edit] Messages:

[edit] Troll

I do so enjoy empty threats. Go for it. The proof is in the posts. You continue to ignore quality refrences, act in an agitated and irrational manner, and contribute nothing to the discussion. I openly accept whatever you care to throw at me. --Tarage (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have ignored no references. Your characterisation of my behavior as agitated and irrational is your personal opinion which you have a right to. Your continued characterisation of me as a troll is clearly and blatantly a personal attack, which is against policy and I insist that you discontinue this disruptive tack. It does not further the goals of this project. I insist that you stop. I am asking you nicely to stop. Please, stop. User:Pedant (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

When one chooses to ignore what is right in front of him, and continues to throw every random argument into play, that person is a troll. I have nothing more to say on the issue. --Tarage (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What you say is not cogent to the issue, as I've pointed out before, the facts are facts and all else is opinion. It is not a fact that I have ignored anything you have said. If you make a comment that needs no response I might not make one. Not everything needs to be an argument. And I do not "throw every random argument into play" -- that description more accurately describes someone who maintains a single-purpose account used to WP:OWN the discussion page on their single focus... but who rarely provides any substance or research or added text to any articles.

Because it's plain to me that your intent is to disrupt collaboration, you're now banned from editing my talk page.

I will only discuss with you on article talk pages or your own talk page (which I will put on my watch list). Also, don't expect any reply from me at all, I won't reply if I feel it would not serve the project goal of writing a good, factually based, well-referenced and unbiased encyclopedia.

[edit] sucks

I think that as long as the article states unsupported assertions and assumptions as fact, then it will continue to suck, and it is a wikipedia policy that we make articles that don't suck. If the article sucks, there's going to be an edit war. Unprotect it anyway. User:Pedant (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your above comment made me smile! I like your directness. I would however like it even better when you would express yourself more politely, considering the feelings of other editors, since things being as they are, this is only pouring petrol onto the fire. Alas. Thx,  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. My definition of an article that sucks is that it sucks up all the available energy of those involved, is unstable, and doesn't progress in a forward direction. The article was at one time a featured article. The next step should be that the article is a shining example of the power of collaboration, rather than no longer a featured article, locked due to an edit war, contains unverifiable assertions, no end in sight.

It was certainly not meant to disparage the laudable efforts of the well-meaning editors who have been working hard on making the article better. Perhaps an apology would be appropriate, however I think I will wait until it after April first to make an effort at writing one that will be taken as sincere. I would not want to have it mistaken as some sort of April fool's prank.

While I appreciate your advice regarding my wording, I would even more appreciate some advice as to how we could move forward with the article, which is really all I'm here for. I really don't have time to belabor every detail with 6 or more editors whose editing technique seems to be to browbeat anyone with a different opinion than themselves.

The information which I object to is information which is impossible for anyone to actually know, so that really anyone who claims to know it is merely repeating someone's opinion. For instance, it is a fact that aircraft hit the WTC -- however, nobody at all anywhere can claim that they know who was piloting the craft. There are no witnesses who can attest to that as a fact. It is a fact that the buildings burned -- however, nobody at all anywhere can claim that they know what caused the 3 WTC buildings to collapse. Investigations are still ongoing, and even the experts word their analyses as conjecture, hypothesis and theory.

I prefer that we state the facts which are actually factual, not just something we can quote from someone who claims to know things that cannot yet be known. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball etc., and it is not appropriate to use crystal balls as sources. We can state actual facts and allow the reader the advantage of deciding for themselves what conclusions can be drawn from those facts. I prefer the Wikipedia to have a reputation for scrupulously avoiding speculation... to be a compendium of reliable information.

Further, I think we need to avoid (and policy precludes) cherry picking data from sources... as using the UN Resolution as a source to definitively state that it was the USA which was attacked. Without knowing the intent of the person or persons responsible for the plan, how can we know what was being attacked? Maybe it was the World Trade Commission that was attacked, or high-rise architects, or (fill in your own maybe) -- unless someone is able to know then that someone cannot say what the intent was, and targeting is closely tied to intent.

Anyway, if you have something you feel is important to tell me, I welcome any comments, but particularly any comments which would serve to improve the article to and beyond featured article status. It's a high profile article and it looks bad for it to be forever protected. I'm sure people "on both sides" of the edit war can come to a consensus about what is definitively factual and not hypothetical or theoretical.

There exists a set of statements about 9/11 which are unquestionably true. I think that if the article contains only those facts which belong to that set, that it would be easy to reach a consensus. If an assertion is made by someone, or a hypothesis is put forward by someone else, it should be stated as "X says Y, based on foo." rather than to baldly state it as fact. Again, 'both sides' should be able to reach a consensus on such statements.

FACT: Members of the UN Security council called the attacks, attacks upon not only the people of New York and the United States, but upon all civilised persons everywhere. (excuse the paraphrase, I'm not quoting, and this should be based on an exact quote)

Assertion: The events of 9/11 were attacks on the USA.

The former is good journalism, the latter is lazy, sloppy, imprecise and in my opinion not in line with our stated policies and mission.

Excuse the long-winded reply please.

Thanks for your comment, it's a pleasure to make your acquaintance. Thanks for your generous contributions to Wikipedia. User:Pedant (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I see I've made an error in judgment, and will reformulate at Talk:9/11.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] APRIL FOOLS DAY

I am on a wikibreak until 12:01 am PST April 2 2008. My computer is celebrating April Fool's day by pulling pranks on me, which results in bizaare and uncontrolled weirdness, which I don't wish to inflict on Wikipedia. Leave me a message if you like, and I'll be back tomorrow. User:Pedant (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

In a 2008 arbitration case administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind providing a link to this alleged inappropriate behaviour, or explain what policy you believe I have violated? User:Pedant (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with your continued assertions that the 9/11 attacks were not suicide attacks, placing this template on your talk page probably wasn't the best way to handle it. My apologies. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't assert and have not asserted that the attacks weren't suicide attacks. User:Pedant (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. In the past, challenges on the talk page have been made primarily by conspiracy theorists seeking to advance their POV. I apologize for lumping you in with them. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well they may be right and they may be wrong. It's really all theory. There was obviously conspiracy going on, the question is who conspired? to do what? for what purpose? and I don't think Wikipedia is the place for theories from either 'side' of the issue.

There will always be people who think the government did everything evil that ever happened and others who think the government never did anything evil... or think that all our problems come from people who hate our freedom, and others who think freedom is something that can be handed out like lollipops, and so on.

None of that has a place here. We can only do the best we can when we try to do the best we can, and Wikipedia would be so much better if it were easier to assume good faith, but too many people have an obvious vested interest in their own POV.

"Many hands make light work" but some hands try to make light not work. User:Pedant (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pedant

Does not come from a much older word that means "someone that teaches", but rather one "who speaks [final] judgement" in a case of law, so that makes you a lawyer ;o), which is of course the ultimate in pedantry since it sometimes involves turning a case on DNA evidence, matching groves on the ammunition, or identification of chemical compounds--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are the second pedant I have encountered in Wiki, in your case, via the MBTI type deletion spree.

The word is, according to my original research, derived from Hebrew - peh din, literally "pronounce judgement". The term is still used in the rabbinic courts of law called Beth Din, literally "house [of] judgement", with an et added (peh din et). The et is interesting because usually it is used as a definite article like the English the, but in this case, it actually stands for an abbreviation Alef-Tav (E"T), meaning the judgement is complete from first letter of the law to the last (in Hebrew alphabet), i.e. what in English is termed "to the letter of the law". However, unlike the literal English meaning, it doesn't actually mean mean a sentencing judgement because rabbinic courts have not had the power to administer criminal cases for like a 1,000 years! What it means is that IN the final judgement of the court (from 3 to 21 rabbis sitting), the interpretation of the law as applied to the case is final. In some cases the deliberations have been known to take years, and on one occasion 200 years. Of course in may cases such deliberations actually establish precedent, so are known to teach something about the principles applied, and are in a way teaching also.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I had a read of your "disruptive activity" in the 9/11 article btw, and would tend to agree with your statements. I can certainly remember from that day and the weeks that followed (living in Brooklyn) that no one had a clue for a while what happened and why. I am myself being told that I am expressing "bad faith" and have been "disruptive". Unsurprisingly I'm not new to this as a former TQA supervisor in IT production facility.

I'll e-mail the -et reply, cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] citations

Where did you get There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that ... pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers. ?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a quote from Jimbo Wales User:Pedant (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha, as if anyone takes notice of this! I would be deleting content 24/7 if this was a policy. I add {{fact}} because several times as soon as I deleted the content was re-added immediately, still without citation. However, I think that in stubs citations are not crucial because they rarely have sufficient content to warrant the research.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think sources and citations are as important as anything else on wikipedia. See User:Pedant/Pillars for an early and informal essay on why we need to stick to the core policies in order that wikipedia can survive and function. User:Pedant (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB

I'm not exactly sure why you re-requested AWB approval. You have been on the approved list since July 1, 2007 ([1]). You had previously requested on June 30, 2007 ([2]), and that request was approved by User:Reedy the next day ([3]). Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My mistake, I guess I had requested permission, and not followed through. Sorry to cause extra work for anyone. User:Pedant (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 (discussion)

Hi, Pedant

I have submitted a proposal for the structure of the 9/11 article that I would appreciate your input on.

Sincerely,

GuamIsGood (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Due by date

I have raised a question which has been nagging me, but not sure its the right place to do so. Can you comment?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bertha

Hi Pedant - I appreciate your comments concerning some minor edits I made to the Big Bertha Howitzer page, so I have substantially re-written both those comments and much else in that article. Cheers, McTodd (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is this? = Reply

Oops. I probably hit the rollback by accident (or habit?) when scanning articles. Mea Culpa on that one. --Hourick (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK then, that's understandable, no problem here. Thanks for the explanation. User:Pedant (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Teene Address

Hi, I'm a big fan of Terry Teene and I want to know where he currently lives and what his address is. Can you get it for me? Plyjacks (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing other people's comments

I think of myself as the f7 key of Wikipedia. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, 'the beauty of this project is' that everyone can pick their own assignments, and do what they feel best suits them. (I guess I am an f11 key?) User:Pedant (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

My name is Keith and I live in Massachusetts and I'm 19 years old. My email is kcody5@gmail.com Plyjacks (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks.

Thanks for all your help 67.126.242.120 (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More info

Hey, I believe you that Terry Teene and George Voorhis created Ronald McDonald. I contacted http://www.thejoyboys.com and they said that Willard Scott did create Ronald McDonald and the webmaster knows Willard Scott very well. But I'm still on your side. But I don't want http://www.thejoyboys.com webmasters angry at us eighter. It would cause even more dispute. But If you want to contact Willard Scott on his site The Joy Boys Website" let me know. Thanks. Plyjacks (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right Pedant. So i'll take your word that George Voorhis and Terry Teene are the creators and I'll take Willard Scott's name off then. Thanks Plyjacks (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Did you see my infomation I sent you. I'm really want Terry Teene's address because I've tried to find it but no luck at all. My email is kcody5@gmail.com. Plyjacks (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey also I saw the article on a newspaper archive website and now I believe you. Thank you. Plyjacks (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rusty Harding

I've deleted the Rusty Harding article, an article you created, since it does not give any cites to reliable sources, and the article was previously deleted for the same reasons subsequent to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty Harding. Please don't re-create it again unless you can provide cites to reliable sources, as required by WP:BIO. -- The Anome (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, I've made a copy of the deleted content at User:Pedant/Rusty Harding -- The Anome (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Given your comments on my talk page and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boomerang engineer‎, I've put Rusty Harding up for the Wikipedia:Deletion review process: see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 7. I still believe that Boomerang engineer should be deleted, since it looks like most of the material in the Boomerang engineer article either belongs in the main Boomerang article or in (were it to be restored) the Rusty Harding article, since the only use of the term "boomerang engineer" seems to be to refer to him. -- The Anome (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Results now in:

The consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 7 appears to be to invite you to create a new article for Rusty Harding, based on the cites you provided at Boomerang engineer's AfD. I'm not quite sure when the deletion review process ends, but it shouldn't be long now. Thanks for being so patient. -- The Anome (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)