User talk:Pedant

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.

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.

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

Category tool

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The thing that interests me in that article is not the form of the article but the unsourced content and statements based on circular media, media outlets using other outlets as source rather than there being any primary original source, and no possibility of supporting statements of people's intent or who was piloting planes we cannot even verify ARE the hijacked planes. I want a authoritative citation on every single allegation of fact, per wikipedia policy and as explicitly stated in Jimbo Wales' "we make the internet not suck" treatise. User:Pedant (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

so, maybe now? User:Pedant (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone said that Willard Scott may see the Ronald McDonald discussion page and get mad at us. I'm scared and don't know what to do. Ufoundme2 (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Run and hide. Willard Scott may sue you for being in a discussion where the truth was told about a factual misstatement he is on record as having said. Nevertheless, Willard Scott did not create the character, the look, the costume, or the name of Ronald McDonald. There is a contemporaneous record to prove it. He appeared in 3 television advertisements, portraying a previously-created character, and using a costume which was substantially similar to the creator's costume, and which was quite dissimilar to the Ronald McDonald costume of today. User:Pedant (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Willard Scott should sue Voorhees and Teene for stealing his idea to create Ronald McDonald.Max33well44 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:George Gray Points Out Glenn's Bald Spot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are an active editor at Boomerang. I am trying to learn how to throw one. How can I get some guidance. Is it possible that the boomerang I have is made for display and not to return upon throwing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put replies on your page, as it seems to me that few people will feel the need to follow this thread, in which I try to assist you in throwing a crooked stick at yourself. User:Pedant (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in New Orleans right now. I will be in Memphis through the week. My boomerang is home in Chicago. I will not get to Chicago until the weekend. I will send you pics when I have my boomerang. Right now it is flying like a stick. I throw it and it goes straight and drops. I will get pics of the edges and all when I can.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you send me your email address to send the pictures to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just came back from a vaction in NH and I asked someone at a McDonald said that he knew Willard and he said that played the original custome but did not create it (two other guys did (who were probably Voorhees and Teene)) however Willard did get to create the new popular one with the jumpsuit and current mascot. That I can believe. SO WILLARD DIDN'T CREATE THE ORIGINAL ONE JUST THE NEW ONE WITH THE JUMPSUIT.

So thank you pedant. I would like to keep in touch with you and Terry as well. Plyjacks (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Willard Scott did not create the "new costume" or the original one. Neither is it true that Willard Scott 'played' the original costume. He never even touched it, but it's obvious from the similarity of the two that he -- or whomever it was that designed the costume in which Willard Scott performed during the 3 advertisements in which he appeared -- saw pictures of the original. The similarities preclude any reasonable person from making any other assumption

Frankly, I don't care what you believe, and I am beginning to question my assumption of good faith on your part. Please don't try to support the truth with unsupported hearsay. Several times, you have made dubious unsupported statements attempting to support my statement that George Voorhees and Terry Teene created the costume, character, name, and persona of the original Ronald McDonald, a claim supported by the contemporaneous record: the photograph in the Valley News, now called the Daily News.

It would be smashing if you could get access to the newspaper archives and retrieve the captioned photo, or provide some other evidence, but it really seems to me that you are making up lies, which are not what is needed to support the truth. I don't want to offend you, I am just being honest when I say that that is how it seems to me.

You have repeatedly expressed a desire to contact Terry Teene, but you have not set your Wikipedia preferences to receive email through the Wikipedia email function, so in order to contact you I have to reveal my own email address without knowing who you are.

I am extremely reluctant to email you and expose my personal details, as you haven't yet gained my trust. You are also unlikely to ever gain my trust either, the way you are going about it. I get a kinda 'stalker vibe' from you. User:Pedant (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I just heard it. I didn't say that it was true. Someone told me that. Second I don't beleieve in stalking and I think it's wrong. If willard Scott didn't create the character at all then that's fine. I'm not interested in Scott just Voorees and Teene. Teene looks more interesting than Scott. So once again again I'm sorry. I shouldn't have acted so stupid. Plyjacks (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Set up your wikipedia account preferences, so that you can receive email through the wikipedia interface, and let me know when you have done so, and I will send you the latest address I know for Terry Teene. I think I made that clear. I'm not trying to be secretive, I just want to behave responsibly with regard to another person's mailing address, and to protect myself from any misrepresentation of my actions. User:Pedant (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I changed it thank you. Now you can sent me an email. Thanks. Plyjacks (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say that it is a pleasure talking to you. I'm a very trustfull person and I even have my own website with people who I have written to. Here's the link http://www.freewebs.com/kgcautographs. Plyjacks (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Now I know that Willard Scott was the frist person to portray him on tv but Voorhees and Teene created the costume. He just played it. But that's still cool that Scott had a part in Ronald but he didn't creat him (Voorhees and Teene did that part). Willard Scott used the custome they created. Thank you Pedant. If you don't want to spread your personal infomation with me than that's fine. I have no problem with that. Thanks again. Keith G. Cody (aka Plyjacks (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No. Wrong plyjacks. Willard Scott was the first person to create Ronald McDonald. NOT Voorhees or Teene. That newspaper article came after Scott created the custome that Voorhees and Teene stole from him and called it there's. Well there wrong and so are you plyjacks. Max33well44 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not welcome on my talk page. Regardless of your belief, you are wrong and I don't tolerate untrue statements on my talk page. I know Terry Teene and George Voorhees and I have seen the original costume, and I have seen the newspaper clipping as well. Terry Teene is one of the most moral people I have ever met, and would never under any circumstances use any other clown's ideas, act, costume or the like without permission. Max33well44, you will not be welcome here on Wikipedia if you continue to make false allegations. You are already on thin ice on my talk page. One more uncivil act or false statement here and you are banned from my talk page. User:Pedant (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember max33well44 that life goes on. I use to like scott but now I like Teene as well. I don't care who created the costume as long as it was Teene. Plyjacks (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use my page for a chat forum. User:Pedant (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opps... Sorry Pedant. I apolizige for that. My mistake. Plyjacks (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through existing Barnstars and although you have an image of one, I belive there isn't a template. If you'd like, I could easily make one for you. Meisfunny Gab 16:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet posted it on WP: Barnstars yet, but here it is:

		The Modest Barnstar
		I give you this Modest Barnstar for uploading the image. Congrats. The code is: {{Template: The Modest Barnstar|Comments}} Meisfunny Gab 23:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar!!!! :) I am really excited, as it is my first. It is now on WP:Barnstars, along with the other one I made yesterday. Meisfunny Gab 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've just done the last of making all the links to phalanx point to whichever phalanx they should - apart from the semi-protected Sparta page, and a couple that refer to the general concept of a phalanx. Oh, and all the talk pages and stuff. Like this one now too :-) Now you'll have to come up with something else for people to do... Jason A. Recliner (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going aroung taking a survey to see if users I know would support me in a campaign for adminship. If you could post your answer here that would be great. Looking around my userpage could also help make a decision if your having trouble. Thanks! Meisfunny Gab 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a website for Terry Teene. Check it out.

http://terryteeneworld.webs.com/

I'm still working it though. But it will be done soon. Plyjacks (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pedant, It's been a pleasure talking and keeping in touch with you. I may not be smart but I'm learning. Now all around the internet people are saying there are disputes in Ronald McDonald's orgins. But they should know that it was George Voorhees and Terry Teene. Willard Scott just played him that's all he did. But I also want Terry Teene's address if possible. Thank you and sorry for all the mistakes I made. Plyjacks (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out

http://peaceaware.com/McD/pages/History_of_Ronal_McDonald_Speedee_Wal_Mart.htm

That site is sad because it's all false. They leave out Voorhees and Teene (the real people who created RM) for some weird reason. But they should have put them in there though. Take care. Plyjacks (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has banned from Wikipedia as sock puppeteer on the Ronald McDonald article. He was using a dozen or so accounts to bolster his arguments. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the worst of that (for me) is that he seems to be supporting my position regarding the Voorhees/Teene origin of Ronald MacDonald. Thanks for letting me know. User:Pedant (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four years later and now I don't care who created Ronald McDonald anymore. Teene, Voorhees or Willard Scott. I just don't want Ronald McDonald to retire. No more sockpuppets for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyjacks (talk • contribs) 03:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flying-Gull.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Flying gull.png. Commons is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image(s) will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Flying gull.png]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Jonathan Briley, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Jonathan Briley seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Jonathan Briley, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{motd}} templates, run by Wikipedia:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:SingleBulletTheoryExploded.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Faris Ahmed Jamaan al-Showeel al-Zahrani from Saudi police poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC) --Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove to me the original photo was in the public domain, I will undelete the image, otherwise no. (Unless you want to use it under the wikipedia:non-free content criteria) The creator of the original image is the copyright holder. That you made a video of that, cleaned it up etc is a derivative work and does not entitle you to release it in the public domain. Garion96 (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is automatically copyrighted. Unless Saudi law is different, you don't need to assert copyright or add a (c) tag, you either have the copyright or you don't. If you can show me that this image is not copyrighted, either by Saudi law or any other reason, I will undelete the image. For the rest, if you don't agree with the deletion, please go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Garion96 (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is pointless, I am not going to rehash the same argument I already stated above. I will not undelete the image, so please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Garion96 (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review. Garion96 (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, I will not undelete this image. Take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard‎ or Wikipedia:Media copyright questions but I will not undelete the image. Garion96 (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the animation of that rocking elephant named Devi, and I would like to know how to make it. Could you please tell me? -BlueCaper (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are two questions I need to know. Please respond on my talk page. -BlueCaper (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Brian Giovannini, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Notability not verified. All Google hits for ""Brian Giovannini" "postage due"" appear to be mirrors of the Wikipedia article, or self-published sources such as wikis. The impressive number of mirrors is due to the article's creation date: 2003...

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Edcolins (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Brian Giovannini, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Giovannini. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Edcolins (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering what was up with this edit, which doesn't seem to make much sense on an article with 37 sources. Perhaps you could be more specific with your concerns about sources? Thanks, --Terrillja _talk 06:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is up is you reverted it without discussion. THEN you left this message. Don't bring bullshit here to my talk page. Discuss articles on the article's talk page, and add a link to it here, if you want me to join the discussion. This is your one single warning. Use my talk page with respect or don't come back. User:Pedant (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at and saw completely unreferenced. If it was a refimprove, or unreliablesources, then I would have left it, but with the article having (almost 40) references, I was a bit mystified as to exactly what was wrong, and figured that there was some sort of mistake, as the section had references, and the article has many as well. My reversion was based on the fact that the template used did not make sense given the number of references, and I left you what I consider to be a reasonable request for clarification. I will take a look at it later, but I certainly didn't expect it to be such a controversial action for you.--Terrillja _talk 13:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a blind revert, with no explanation. If you thought a more suitable tag was appropriate, change it. Reverting without discussion on the talk page, no way you will convince me that it is appropriate to do that. Ask first revert later. Citations for everything is core principle. Discussion for controversial reverts is also. It will always be controversial to remove a tag requesting citations, so it is always wise to discuss it on the talk page. In public, where the issue is. Not here on my talk page. I have a note at the top of this page that specifically asks that these discussions occur on the appropriate page rather than here. You ignored this and initiated a discussion here. I may not own my talk page, but I still will not allow it to be used in any other way than I think is appropriate. Think of me as Wikiproject:Pedant's talk page if you like. I won't have discussions in private that belong in public. User:Pedant (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you've never read it, please have a look at Wikipedia's civility policy, from which you are straying. You won't get what you want if you carry on behaving towards good-faith editors as if they are clueless meanies. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it and wrote parts of it. It is uncivil to abuse someone's talk page.

A good-faith editor discusses changes on the article's talk page, and would respect my wish that this global policy not be strayed from on my talk page.

Good faith editors do not revert edits with no discussion on the appropriate talk page.

I reserve the privilege of using idiomatic language on my talk page, including the use of terms such as "bullshit" as my talk page is an informal region of the wikipedia and not one that a casual and offendable reader will peruse.

When one places oneself on editorial review, one is inviting assessment of their editorial behavior, would you not agree?

I never said the editor in question was a clueless meanie, but I did assess the editor as being unsuitable at this point for my support in his quest to acquire an adminship, and responded to his misbehaviour in an entirely appropriate manner, as I see it.

Personally, I think the editor will never be ready if after "5000 nearly 7000" edits his edit summary shows very little writing being done and the editor still doesn't know that discussions of major reversions should always happen on the talk page. Or that reverting a tag placement (from an established editor with a history of good edits, who is listed on just about every whitelist I've checked) without discussion and without reason (the article is FULL of unsourced assertions of fact, gush language, temporal awkwardnesses ; in-universe perspectives and looks frankly like a promo for Heidi, removing unsourced assertions of fact is the first obvious step to save the article.) and said it pretty tactfully on the editorial review page, less tactfully here on my talk page, where I will continue to act in the same manner as I always have unless it is brought to my attention that my behavior is somehow causing net damage rather than net improvement.

That's a very different thing than my lack of awareness that the unreferenced tag template had been changed to "completely unreferenced" on an article that reads like an autobio and has half of it's assertions unreferenced.

"Getting what I want" is not the mission here, Writing a well-referenced, unbiased, factual and complete encyclopedia is the mission. It's not a social club or forum or fansite or etc... But thank you for your input, and for your appropriate use of my talk page. It's nice to meet you and I look forward to working with you further. User:Pedant (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If that's what you want, you'll get much further towards that goal by bein' canny civil. If you want to talk about the whys and wherefores of this, please let me know. If you're uncivil, I'll block you, you've been warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhuh, yeah. If I had been uncivil, I would be banned. I'm not banned because to do so would be an abuse of your admin privileges and responsibilities. You have also been warned. User:Pedant (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of art cars, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of art cars. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Logical Premise ^Ergo? 15:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been restored, but does not have a source or license (and, apparently a correct fair use). There's a grace period of 2 days before the image goes up for deletion again if it's not corrected. Skier Dude (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to discuss George/Terry with you. JimmKnows (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on compiling a book containing information about almost all Non-indigenous ethnic groups living or working in Pakistan. The population of a particular ethnic group would be obtain respectively from their diplomatic missions in Pakistan including regions with significant populations, languages spoken and religious affiliations. I'm not very good with writing so it would be great, if you would like to collaborate with me.--116.71.53.25 (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm-Reconsider the static (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok, thanks! -Reconsider the static (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw you created this page, and nominated it for speedy deletion under criteria G8 - pages dependent on a nonexistent page, such as talk pages with no corresponding article. It looks like this content may be intended to be an article; in that case, you should move it into article space, or into your userspace. If it remains as an orphaned talk page it will be deleted. If you have any questions, please let me know. Robofish (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm sorry, but I can't get back the content of this page myself - I'm not an admin. I suggest you contact the one who deleted it, User:Anthony.bradbury, and ask him to do so; if he won't, try one of the others listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. I hope that helps. Robofish (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pedant! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,212 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Louis Berger - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Olympic creed, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070219031113AAC3zWv. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call off your bot please Yahoo answers does not own the Olympic creed. Olympic creed was formerly a redir to Olympic oath which has nothing to do with the creed. I copied the text from Wikipedia's Olympic games article to replace the redirect with the text, which is what one expects to find. The goal of the project is to make the internet not suck, and now it sucks a little less. Please prohibit your bot from posting to my page, I have been doing this a lot longer and a lot better than your bot.User:Pedant (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the text in question is:

The Olympic Creed, distinct from the Olympic Oath reads:

"The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well."

The February 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GNN Mosh bb2 00000002.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2010 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting five coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next year; members are invited to nominate themselves if interested. Please do not vote yet, voting will begin on September 15. This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Stagecraft Newsletter (October 2010)

The WikiProject Stagecraft Newsletter! Issue 1 - July, 2010 Hello and welcome to this, the first ever edition of the WikiProject Stagecraft Newsletter! If you haven't been over to the WikiProject page lately then you're missing out - the whole thing has undergone a complete makeover - see below for more info! On top of this, we have brand spanking new templates (such as this one) and a completely revamped Collaboration of the Month - again, see below for more info on all of this. Finally, a warning - the new-look WikiProject is still having the finishing touches put on it. If you find something that doesn't work, you don't agree with or is just plain missing, please don't hesitate to let us know on the WikiProject's talk page. We'll try our very best to fix ASAP! New Look As mentioned above, the WikiProject has recently undergone a spring-clean and we're excited about it! If you don't mind - we'd like to take this opportunity to explain some of the features and generally show off about it a little. Colour scheme All pages on the WikiProject now use two consistent shades of blue as part of the new streamlined interface (Those techies amongst us may wish to know that the precise names of the colours we use are: "lightblue" for headings and "#c0e0e0" for backgrounds). Navigation Menu Every page on the WikiProject now has the official WikiProject navigation menu so you can easily flick between pages and get back to the main project page. Say goodbye to clicking the back button several times! To Do list/Open Tasks If you're stuck on what to do to help us then a list of the most important tasks is now available on the main page. At the moment, the list is looking a little short so if you have found something that you think ought to be added, then feel free to edit the list and let us know. Please refrain from linking to a specific article that generally needs an overall update. Single articles like this should be nominated for a future Collaboration of The Month - see below. Templates All of the project's templates are now arranged in one handy page. Whilst we were going through we also noticed one was missing. We have now added the new template in the form of: {{WPStagecraftWelcome}} - a welcome tag to be placed on the talk page of a new user. {{WPStagecraft Newsletter}} - the template containing the latest edition of the WikiProject Newsletter (you're looking at it now!) Collaboration of the Month Ok, so this isn't exactly a new feature. It's always been there but has never really been updated on a, ahem, monthly basis. The Collaboration of the Month (COTM) is now in template form to enable it to be streamlined across the Project, without having to be manually updated on each page. Don't worry if we've lost you at this point - the point is, it works! You can now nominate an article for COTM on the COTM page. The more sharp-eyed amongst you may well have noticed that the COTM at the moment is still that old fella, Stage lighting. That's because no-one has nominated a COTM for this month (being a new feature an' all...) so we've decided to leave it as it is for this month until a new one has been democratically voted for. And finally... Thanks very much for reading down this far - hopefully future newsletters won't be this long! Please, if you can, invite new members and drop us a line over at the talk page to let us know what you think of the new look/newsletter and any suggestions you may have. You have received this newsletter because your name is on the list of Participants on the WikiProject page. If (like most of the old WikiProject) this information is out of date and you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name from the Participants list and also click here to stop receiving the newsletter. To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. To view previous editions of the newsletter, click here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let us know on the talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Stagecraft at 13:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The Octoberr 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I come here asking for someone who can help me. The trouble is this; there is an article named "White Argentine"; both the term and article comprise all Argentinians of predominantly European/Middle Eastern ancestry (It doesn't include, for example, Mestizo and Mulatto Argentines). The article was created in July 2007, and I found it and first edited it in April 2010. I greatly expanded it creating a History section with data about European immigration to Argentina, and the influence of the descendants of those European immigrants in Argentina's culture, music, literature, entertainment, etc. Suddenly, several users appeared criticizing the article of "Original research" and violation of BLP policy, etc, so they tearing the article to pieces, erasing entire sections at will. They allege that there is no such group, that it needs self-identification to be acknowledged as such; the problem is that Argentina's Census Bureau (INDEC) does not conduct racial/ethnic censuses (except for the Afro-Argentines and the Amerindians), and so "Argentino blanco" is not a label or umbrella term used in Argentina. But I know that White Argentines really exist and comprise a majority of the country's population -all sources agree in 85%-; and I know it because I live in Argentina, and I am one of them. I need an expert on the matter to guide me where I can search for better sources: bibliography, data, censuses, etc. Can anyone help me, please?--Pablozeta (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lady Washington built in Aberdeen WA and launched in 1989.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 08:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add citation tags where they do not belong. You know better. --Tarage (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not bugger sheep. User:Pedant (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up and you'll be topic banned. --Tarage (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember you are already banned from my talk page here for your intentionally-disruptive-to-collaboration behaviour. Go away and don't come back. discuss articles on their page, not here on mine. You are still not welcome here. Go away for another 3 years with your unfounded unactionable and wholly unsupported wrongful allegations against me. User:Pedant (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't archive the thread because I wanted the topic to "go away," I did it because it was a needless distraction from the real issues. Consensus on this issue is clear. You could pursue some form of dispute resolution if you like but I have no doubt it will end with the same result. My advice to you is to concede this point. In furtherance of that goal, you may also take this as an official notification of the restrictions in this topic area, as indicated in the template below. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision.

• • You don't archive a discussion in which the last post is a question. Consensus IS clear: ALL assertions of fact are to be cited with relible, verifiable third-party sources. The two sources provided are not only identical quotes, and so are only from one source, the quote is not attributed. We use THIRD party sources not second party. I'm sure if my behavior was suitable for sanctions, it would have happened a long time ago. I'm not, as has been alleged, a POV pusher... you are welcome to look at my extensive body of work. However, it is a sticking point, that no matter how long this article gets attention, everyone is being browbeaten into accepting 'as consensual' the statement attributing a specific state of mind to two people whose identity cannot even be thoroughly confirmed. Wp:NOT a crystal ball, we can't accept an assertion of fact as an actual fact if the unidentified asserter of that 'fact' had no possibility of knowing it's actual factuality. To accept the word 'intentionally' in the first paragraph, just destroys the possibility of the article being credible at all. It's a high-profile article, I'm surprised so many established editors are willing to let a small coven of editors WP:OWN the article and exert their will to keep this article in this shoddy state. I'm not at all surprised that people who have already made clear what their personal motives are want to keep it under strict control, but the way wikipedia works is that there are no assertions of fact so small that they don't need sourcing, and no source is sacrosanct and above the need for credibility. User:Pedant (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to debate this with you. That has already been done. The only purpose of this post was to inform you of the sanctions and advise you of your options. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • The <I'm not going to debate you but>debate</I'm not going to debate you but> format is absurdly childish. If you don't want your posts discussed, repeated, edited and used in my book, then you are in the wrong place. Wikipedia, especially my user talk page, doesn't work that way. If you are not going to debate with me then there are better ways to do it than to continue the debate. There are no options, the rules are clear all assertions of fact challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation, and those citations must follow all rules for citations, reliability, verifiability being the most essential of those rules. I have challenged this assertion of fact and no citatioons have been forthcoming. I have addressed these on the discuss page as needed. No consensus can override the fundamental rules of wikipedia unless you wish to try to obtain consensus for 'no need to cite things everybody assumes as fact', or 'things someone says that nobody knows who said it or how they could have the abilty to know it'... if you want to change the fundamental nature of wikipedia, you are going to need a pretty big hammer. Same thing for if you want me to drop the point, which I consider to be a fundamental flaw in the way wikipedia is being used, tantamount to abuse, of not needing citations for things a subset of editors consider to be not needing citations. I'm sticking with this issue until it is resolved. User:Pedant (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." from Wikipedia:Verifiability User:Pedant (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying. The options I refer to are to either let it go or pursue some form of formal WP:DR. I am not going to continue arguing the points of the content dispute with you because as far as everyone but you is concerned the matter has been resolved. I'm sorry if you feel this is abusive, but the Arbitration Committee granted admins the authority to impose sanctions on all Sept 11 related pages for numerous good reasons, stopping the endless battles over non-issues like this one being one of those reasons. If you wish to pursue this further I urge you to use normal channels of dispute resolution or I will have no choice but to impose such sanctions on you. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not understanding what you are not saying. Citations MUST be provided for all material which is challenged or likely to be challenged. It's NOT a non-issue. I have repeatedly challenged the inclusion of the word "intentionally" as having no source. No source has been provided. I have tagged it as needing a cite, and the tag has been removed. I have discussed this on the talk page as required. What is it you are NOT saying? For which of my actions do you propose sanctioning me? User:Pedant (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said this in my last post, but apparently you need it repeated and you like things you think are important to be bolded, so perhaps this will help: If you wish to pursue this further I urge you to use normal channels of dispute resolution or I will have no choice but to impose such sanctions on you. The reason is that your concern has been "asked and answered" already. Continuing to tag the article or campaigning for a cite on the talk page without using DR will be treated as disruptive editing. I hope this clarifies matters for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"asked and answered" ??? No. It hasn't. Discussing the article on the talk page IS a part of the dispute resolution process. What you are NOT saying, but implying, is that you will sanction me while I am still operating within the normal dispute resolution guidelines. What you are NOT saying is that you are unwilling to recognize the policy that all assertions of fact that have been challenged REQUIRE a citation. What you are NOT saying is that you are willing to condone me being personally attacked as a "known pov pusher who has been banned for it" IN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AN ADMIN thout regard to the facts: I am not and HAVE NEVER pushed a POV, nor have I ever been banned for any reason. What you are not saying is that you feel that you are above the rules. I'm putting you on notice that you are involved in the dispute because you have taken the time to personally discuss this with me, without regard to the facts you have threatened me with banning when I have not in fact been disruptive. YOU have been disruptive by archiving 'as finished' a discussion with open, unanswered and unresolved questions. I have at all times been civil and followed wikipedia procedures, so banning me would be premature at best. User:Pedant (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't archive my own talk page. You are welcome to carefully do so if the task appeals to you. It's a wiki. Just be careful, there are a lot of open discussions on this page. Thanks.

The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Escape Training Tower Pearl Harbor.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Pressure Chamber.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pedant! Express your interest in unrecognized countries by placing {{User:Presidentman/Ubx/URC}} on your userpage. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 13:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UOJComm (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Delmart Vreeland Note.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 08:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pedant, I took the liberty to ad a ==

== tag on your UP, for the red to disappear. I hope you do not mind. Lotje ツ (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 16:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk | contribs) 12:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 15:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pine^talk 06:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "100 cups" of butter tea (which I like myself, Tibetan-Canadian style):
I have not found anything about 100, but these two articles discuss the negative health consequences of a "high consumption" of butter tea:

http://www.tibetvisionproject.org/files/SwissRedCross.pdf
http://india2005.org/3614en.html

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2012 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the distribution list. GRAPPLE X 00:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Pressure vacuum breaker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wilkins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It was intentional. Wilkins founded the shop that created the design, a modification of which is used by almost every manufacturer of PVPsUser:Pedant (talk)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The MOTD Barnstar
		The MOTD Barnstar is awarded to Pedant for his invaluable contribution to our project, which was experiencing a period of extreme scarcity. Thank you from Motto of the day. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: Hoping that you feel comfortable with us, we hope and desire that you will want to continue contributing to our/your project. I personally think that if many of us contribute, then about ten minutes per week, by reviewing the existing nominations, and eventually adding new nominations, should be more than enough to get the project going! Once again, thank you from your Motto of the day. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedant,

It's been four years and now since I'm more mature than I was four years ago. I just want to tell you that It doesn't matter who created Ronald McDonald. It's that he should not retire. I bet Terry Teene must be upset that there trying to take away his hard work as well for George Voorhees. So I just wanted to tell you that! Plyjacks Keith G.J. Cody (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brad Spitz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Spitz until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. joe decker^{talk to me} 17:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Seva Foundation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not Notable. See ‪Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)‬

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, you asked a question on my talk page about the distinction between the terms Turkish and Turkic. I responded on my own talk page, not on yours, so I'm not sure if you ever read the response. Well, I've since come to realize that the issue is more complex than I had realized it was at the time, and my response wasn't entirely accurate. A distinction has to be made between Turkish as a nationality and Turkish as a ethnicity. Anyway, Turkish as an ethnicity is a narrower concept and Turkic is a broader concept. Gringo300 (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roof and tunnel hacking, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:CBR2.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

I know I'm thanking you many years later but as they say better late then never :-). You forgot to sign your name.[4], but thanks regardless. I respect appreciative people who give credit where it's due. Something Wikipedia has a shortage of. Thanks again!-Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mycroft project is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mycroft project until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mr. Guye (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Other events of 1989. Since you had some involvement with the Other events of 1989 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Hello Pedant! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gimmick weapon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimmick weapon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Flow arts. Since you had some involvement with the Flow arts redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC) ===link for some info: http://flowartsinstitute.com/history-of-term-flow-arts/[reply]

I found a link to List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise as an example of WP:SIA, might be what you're looking for. RobDuch (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but that is an article made after the one I refer to, possibly made from it even. The one I wrote had information on each ship and was not a "List of" article. There were two that have been, IMO annoyingly deleted. There was a lot of work done to compile them and the information seems to have just been spat on and thrown away. A couple weeks of careful research and writing. Ships named Enterprise and Ships named Nautilus The articles being treated like that (deleted and done so thoroughly that they aren't found any more and the research and references not rolled over into other articles.) sure makes me recalibrate how much time and effort I feel like giving to this project. I appreciate you taking the time to try to help, [[User:RobDuch|RobDuch User:Pedant (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ships_named_Nautilus&diff=864514741&oldid=7732221 there is a lot of useful information that has been pruned from the article. Lots of missing ships. User:Pedant (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that there are attempts to place restrictions on what precisely goes into dab and set index articles, particularly ship articles of these types. And articles are "pigeonholed" into one of these tightly defined categories. Gutting an article is the wrong approach. RobDuch (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm disappointed at some of the actions by members of WP:Ships, the project started out good but it is very British Navy/US Navy - centric. Articles have been torn apart and turned into USS this and HMS that, and other ships with clear histories have had their information deleted. I'm not an Inclusionist by any means but I hate the way Deletionists rampage around the project. User:Pedant (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The extreme nit-picky or "my way or the highway" attitudes of some users (from various parts of WP) is why I've never nominated an article I've worked on for GA/AC/FA. RobDuch (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Swift water rescue requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Individual capacity is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual capacity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Noahfgodard (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

I’m not sure what the point of this section is but it seems blatantly inappropriate for a userpage per WP:SOAP and Wikipedia:PROFRINGE. Maybe consider removing it? Dronebogus (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been more than 24 hours and the section hasn’t been removed. Since you rarely edit anymore I don’t see any reason to wait around and allow what appears to be an obvious policy violation to remain on your page indefinitely. You are free to revert but unless you have some extremely good reason I’ll be taking the issue to WP:ANI Dronebogus (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your point. It's a list of uncited allegations of fact. On my talk page. Don't edit my talk page unless you have a clear reason, my page is not a soapbox for you either. What are you even here for in the first place unless you are stalking me? I stand by all my edits.

User:Pedant (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be pushing 9/11 trutherism in the section in question, which is wp:PROFRINGE and wp:soap. You don’t own your userpage and can’t use it as a blog for random opinions largely unrelated to you or the encyclopedia. Dronebogus (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Find a process that will agree with you and THEN delete it. Don't just come in and delete a whole section because the overall tone of it suggests to you that you might. There are no random opinions or opinions unrelated to the encyclopedia. You just don't perceive them. Also, 'seeming to support'? If your case is so weak it has to be expressed in weasel words, it's pretty weak. User:Pedant (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t even answer whether or not it was 9/11 trutherism. Also how can it be weasel wording if it’s just my opinion and not a vague appeal to an unspecified authority? Dronebogus (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to argue with you. Go through the process if you want something removed from the page. I'm not engaging with you. Be careful you aren't harassing me by continuing to be confrontational here. User:Pedant (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve opened a discussion at ANI here. Dronebogus (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me know if you need some help with it. I think you are just trying to provoke an issue (Personal attack removed). (Personal attack removed), and now that you have commented and notified me of the discussion, you probably have no further need of editing this page. I would appreciate if you refrain from doing so, (Personal attack removed). User:Pedant (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that’s not very nice. Dronebogus (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, THAT, your reply, was not. I feel that you are harassing me, and again ask you to refrain from edits to this page. User:Pedant (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully agree with Dronebogus and BeyondMyKen, but at a minimum your user page needs to not violate WP:BLPRS per WP:BLPTALK. Add some ref tags or don't name names. RAN1 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag anything that you think needs references. User:Pedant (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pedant, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pedant and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Pedant during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broc (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]