This user was a part of the now closed
Association of Members' Advocates.

Archived Talk[edit]

Archive 1 2004-11-19

Archive 2 2004-11-24

Archive 3 2005-01-14

Archive 4 2005-02-27

For your reference[edit]

Hunter S. Thompson image discussion about the cannon explosion/supernova picture in case you wanted (or not) to weigh in. --Stbalbach 05:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Welcome template[edit]

Yeah, someone already responded to my question. I know of this template, which I use to welcome new people with usernames, and now I use the {{anon}} template to welcome anons. Thanks anyway! user:Mathx314

Question[edit]

You had previously said you would be willing to nominate be as an admin. See my archieved talk. Is that still the case? Thanks EdwinHJ | Talk 20:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Lady of Shallott[edit]

I notice that you've marked this as being 'in use'; you may have noticed that it's been substantially rewritten lately; could you discuss your intended changes on the Talk page before you do anything drastic? Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I quite respect the recent work done to both articles. I merged The Lady of Shallott to The Lady of Shalott, and included all the information from both articles, including links. I'm done with it, feel free to put a nice polish on anything that the merge has besmirched. Pedant 23:39, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply — I've had enough bad experiences not to have become just a little little — well, not paranoid exactly, but jumpy. I just need to remember which Users can be trusted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:Image:Ant.jpg, and thank you for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please leave a link on the image page to prove this. If the image is fair use, please provide justification. Thank you. --Ellmist 05:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TrangBang[edit]

Hey there, I have put Image:TrangBang.jpg on copyvio again. Might want to keep an eye out to chime in with what you found. I don't think there's a more blatant copyright vio out there. --Wgfinley 04:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My RFA[edit]

Hey wanted to let you know i'm up for Adminship if you want to go vote. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alkivar ALKIVAR™ 05:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biweekly special article[edit]

Dear Fact and Reference Check member,

After many months, the biweekly special article has been brought back! The article we will be referencing is Titan (moon). Please do your best to help out!

I'm asking all members to verify at least three facts in the article, and I'd really appreciate it if you could try and help with this. We have about 19 members, so if even 3/4 of us try and fulfil this 'dream', that'll be 45 references!

If you need some information on how to use footnotes, take a look at Wikipedia:Footnote3, which has a method of autonumbering footnotes. Unfortunately, they produce brackets around the footnotes, but it seems to be our best alternative until they integrate the footnote feature request code into MediaWiki. You may be interested in voting for the aforementioned feature request.

Cheers,

Frazzydee|✍ 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed you are a successful editor for the "9/11 domestic conspiracy theory" page.

I have a page that is being voted on for deletion. My page has links that may be useful to your article.

However, I am not a successful editor. The users who are voting for deletion of my page are also reverting all minor edits or inserts that I make to other pages, in a tag-team fashion. Therefore I cannot try to edit the above mentioned article that you edit.

If you want more links to support your article, you are in a position to harvest them from my article prior to its deletion. My article is called "9/11 open questions".

Best of success with your article.

Bogusstory 20:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Pedant/911[edit]

I notice the page is in two categories; however, the categories were clearly intended to be links. I don't want to fix it since it's in your User: space, but could you please change the two instances of [[Category:xxx|yyy]] to [[:Category:xxx|yyy]] (i.e., add a : in the front) to convert them into proper links? --cesarb 03:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

sorry... go ahead and make whatever fixes you feel are suitable, regardless of it being in my namespace. I looked it over real fast and couldn't spot the links... I just got in from a 2 day shoot, and I'm too beat to do anything now. Pedant 02:09, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Done. --cesarb 02:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Untagged images[edit]

Hello, could you add licence tag on pictures you uploaded to commons ? there are listed among Commons:Commons:Untagged images. Cheers —FoeNyx 15:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some people tagged some of the images the 10 Apr, but some are still untagged (they have mention of the public domain but should have a tag as {{PD-USGov-NASA}} or {{PD-USGov}} for the last one.)

--FoeNyx 12:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DONE, thanks for your help.Pedant 2005 June 28 07:09 (UTC)

AMA Meeting Proposal[edit]

Hi! I put together a proposal for another AMA meeting that I'm hopeful you can chime in on. --Wgfinley 20:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Juggling[edit]

Hi, I see we have the articles Juggling and Toss juggling, but it seems that the juggling article is about 10 larger than the toss juggling article and almost exclusively on toss juggling. You asked to not have the toss juggling article merged with the juggling article, do you still feel that way? Matt 01:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Juggling article should eventually include examples of all types of juggling and juggling related arts, butToss juggling is a specific subset that, it seems to me, will tend to overwhelm the Juggling article and overshadow all of the many other types of juggling.

Juggling in my opinion should be used as a hub article to facilitate access to ALL of the Juggling Arts, since 'juggling' is obviously the most likely place for someone to start looking for info on juggling arts.

I feel that the fact that, as you pointed out "the juggling article is about 10 larger than the toss juggling article and almost exclusively on toss juggling" can best be remedied by adding information on juggling in general or on specific 'other forms besides Toss' juggling. Obviously you have an interest in the Juggling constellation, what is your opinion(s) regarding the article? Are you a juggler? Or is there a different reason you are interested? What direction would you like to take the 'juggling constellation'? I am interested any ideas or suggestions you have. You can answer here or on your page, I'll see it either way. Feel free to copy our discussion to any relevant discuss pages if appropriatePedant 22:06, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is fine to have an article for general juggling and a seperate one for toss juggling, though I don't know anything about other forms of juggling, so I wont be the one adding the information. As it stands now, we have two articles on toss juggling, and that creates a situation where people will be adding information to both articles that will later have to be merged. I am a bad amateur juggler, and I've been contributing to the siteswap article. I'm not so interested in the 'juggling constellation' but the odd thing (like siteswap) catches my interest and I contribute if I think I can. I don't particularly have any suggestion, I just thought that I'd point the situation out because maybe you forgot about the two juggling and hadn't noticed that most toss juggling information was being added to the juggling page. Matt 16:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Just to say Hi[edit]

Hi! I noticed your comment on blockmeandgetitoverwith's user page, and that you had been given 'my' barnstar on the same day. I just thought that means the universe wants me to say hello. Nice to meet you.Pedant 20:44, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Pleasure to meet you too. I hope I'm living up to your expectations. :) Kelly Martin 21:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I need help![edit]

Hello, my name is Flowerofchivalry, I think you know who am I :) I have been working to resolve NPOV issues. As you found out from history and talkpage log, reverting was started always from the other side.

According to NPOV, we have to write all POVs that has credible and reliable sources. I cited those sources to support POVs, but Hmib and Mark have ignored these. Hmib stated that the Japanese historian sources Flower produced are all well-known crooks in terms of credibility. Most of them are the professors of Univ of Tokyo and equivalent. Univ of Tokyo is one of the highest ranked university in Japan.

It is clear that they do not agree anything they do not favor. I'm forced to conclude that those Chinese people just want to exclude all POVs they do not favor from the articles.

I'm tired but I have to keep fighting to protect our Wikipedia from their rule-breaking activities.

--Flowerofchivalry 21:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Help part 1[edit]

OK.

I want to be impartial and not favor either side in this, and to do so I will not be researching the article or articles in question. I will merely attempt to help facilitate discussion. I might or might not also work with others in the dispute, anyone who asks for help, I will attempt to help.

I am assuming good faith on the part of everyone involved, to begin with, and I will not 'take sides' or judge who is wrong or right, merely make suggestions. If that works for you, I would be glad to help.

Also, our conversations on my talk page will be available for anyone to read, I see no need for secrecy... portions of our discussion might be copied to the appropriate article's talk page.

One issue that may be affecting communication is that at least one of you appear to not be a native speaker of English. If you have difficulty expressing your ideas, I would be happy to "translate your English into English" for you, and try to help you express precisely what it is you wish to express.

It would be helpful to me if you don't refer to other editors in our discussion, but merely the statements:

that are in the article, but are false, or untrue, or misleading;

that are in the article but are not neutral or are not 'encyclopedic;

that are not in the article but are important and must be included for completeness;

that contain Point of View problems, either:

expressing a strong point of view that is not neutral

or

omitting an opposing, valid point of view.

Just to begin. I'll check my messages tonight. I am in time zone GMT - 8 hours, West Coast of North America. Please continue this discussion on my talk page in the section you started.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. Pedant 21:34, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

from Flowerofchivalry[edit]

I greatly appreciate your help. Yes, please do NOT favor my side...because I have to listen to the third parties' opinion.

I strongly believe... (deleted by Pedant) ...has made all the problems, but if you find my problem, please do not hesitate to tell me that. This is what I would like you to do it.

In addition, yes, my English sucks. This is a fact. However, I passed all university level English composition classes. It is clear for me that I have to keep improving my skill of English.

Again, thank you for your offer, and please don't hesitate to point my problem, if there is any. --Flowerofchivalry 01:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

my reply[edit]

OK, if you have a problem with understanding anything I say or ask, please tell me, and I'll say it differently - you seem to understand English fine, but if I am not being understood, tell me. question one: At this point, in the protected version of the article, what is wrong?

is anything in the article false, or untrue, or misleading;

is anything in the article not neutral or are 'unencyclopedic;

is anything not in the article that is important and must be included for completeness;

is anything in the article a Point of View problem, either:

expressing a strong point of view that is not neutral

or

omitting an opposing, valid point of view... ?

Remember, to maintain a distance from the issue, I am not going to familiarize myself with the topic, except the parts that you point out as problems.

question two: If the article were to be unprotected, what do you anticipate being added or removed that should not be added, or removed? (this is an optional question, I can work without an answer to this).Pedant 01:37, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

FoC's reply[edit]

I understand your point.

A1. The current Iris Chang has several problems as stated below.

1. The article lacks NPOV because the article omitted opposing POVs.

2. The article should have included another POV from credible scholors to resolve the issue.

3. The article emphasized her achievement and dwarfished the counterargument.

A2. I do not decide yet. This is because while the revert war was going on, the other editors ignored the talkpage, but now some discussion is going on. I will respect the agreement, if established; otherwise, I believe my edition is the best so I will revert to my edition.

--Flowerofchivalry 01:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that there is ongoing discussion. To avoid a continuation of the revert war, I advise not editing the article until consensus/agreement is reached, I'm sure that there is a solution available that will be acceptable for all concerned. I promise to stay with this issue until consensus is reached, including help during mediation process if necessary, I promise there is no risk in waiting for discussion to be finished.

OK, please state the opposing point of view (1) that you wish to include, and (2) suggest a source for citation.

Please explain

What achievement is emphasized? Is it fact, or opinion? Is there an available reference?

If so, do you recommend an alternate wording of the statement that "emphasized her achievement", that would render it more neutral?

What counterargument is needed? Is it fact or opinion? Is there an available reference?

Pedant 02:08, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

I will not revert as long as appropriate discussion is going on (except for vandalism as stated in the official rules).

Q1. What achievement is emphasized.

A1. The second and third works. There are huge disputes going on about her second work. There are plenty of credible publicities from scholors. For the third work, there are also disputes going on. Some of them questions the work's credibility.

Q1.1. Alternative wording.

A1.1. Of course, why not??

Q2. What counterargument is needed?

A2. As same as A1, despite the fact that the credibility of Nanking Massacre is still in question, the original article assume that exists. Yes, this is one POV, but many scholors decline the existance. This is another POV and must be included. There are huge numbers of references available.

I will go out soon, but I will come back in a few hours. BTW, I live in CA. --Flowerofchivalry 02:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I forgor to cite. I'm working on right now. --Flowerofchivalry 02:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Take your time. I'll be offline until tomorrow afternoon...

I have added the following text to the RfC: User:Flowerofchivalry has accepted my offer of assistance in resolving the edit war/protection issue on Iris Chang. I am currently in dialogue with Flowerofchivalry seeking to clarify the user's side of this issue. I am willing to act as advocate for Flowerofchivalry during any conflict resolution process regarding the articles mentioned in this RfC.

As of now, it seems that Flowerofchivalry is attempting to achieve a Neutral Point of View in the article, and believes that the article 'over-emphasizes' Iris Chang's 'accomplishments', and omits mention of opposing viewpoints.

I have not discussed etiquette issues yet with Flowerofchivalry yet.

A brief perusal of the discussion page seems to indicate a general breakdown of etiquette, and it seems to me that both 'sides' to this argument seem to feel as if they have a personal stake in the outcome, and have acted outside of wikipedia guidelines. I feel that this conflict is still resolvable by consensus process at this time.Pedant 03:13, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I really appreciate that. --Flowerofchivalry 22:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, more questions...

(3)Do you believe that the opinion that the Nanking Massacre has been exaggerated or did not even happen needs to be more prominently placed, or expanded on? (It is at least mentioned in Nanking Massacre. There is also a mention that there are other names given to the incident, and that "The extent of the atrocities is debated".)

(4)Is more needed? What is missing, in your opinion? What should be removed?

(5)What are the disputes about the 2nd work? What facts, or whose opinions are missing from the articles?

(6)What are the disputes about the 3rd work? What facts, or whose opinions are missing from the articles?

(7)If your version of the article is better, what would need to be changed to make it neutral and acceptable to the other editors involved, without destroying the article?

(8)Do you, personally have an opinion that the Nanking Incident did not happen? or that it has been exaggerated? If so, do you feel this is based on facts? I know it's a wierd question -- but usually edit wars happen when someone has a strong sense that a deeply-held belief is being ignored or trivialised... I think probably 'both sides' have some strong feelings about this issue. (9)Does that seem correct to you?

I'll be unavailable for about 20 hours from nowPedant 03:13, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

A3. Yes, because there are huge, huge dispute is going on, and the Chinese Government claims that 300,000 or 400,000 people were kill in 4km² area in less than 2 month, and there is only one witness, who testified that he saw one homicide case. A Chinese person tried to run away from a stop order, so the Japanese soldier shot him. This is not Japanese's fault at all. This claim is physically impossible.

And, this is an important thing, but I failed to find a proper counterargument for this point. I know everybody's watching here so if someone find some counterargument, please let me know.

Her second work is closely related to the incident, so this must be mentioned in the article Iris Chang. The argument of Nanking Massacre is also closely related to the argument of her second work.

A4. Iris Chang was a political activist. She was paid by the Chinese Government to write her book, the anti-Japanese organizations supported her, and her activities especially after the publishing of the second work.

A5. This is the same as A3.

A6. There is a dispute over her third work also. She distorted the history, and made her work like the Chinese mainland's history textbook. This is a comment from Time Asia, and the author support the second work but even such the author, accused her third work.

A7, Honestly, I believe my edition is neutral, because I believe so. But, needless to say, this might not be always true. That's the reason why I waited comment at talkpage, but my comment had been ignored long time. The discussion was restarted after Hmib posted RfC.

A8. I personally have opinion, which decline the existance of the incident. One of the good reason is A3. It is impossible to kill 300,000 people in such very small area. John Maggie stated that he saw one homicide case as I stated above.

However, my opinion is subject to change because I am a fact driven. When I find other evidence/witness/argument, my opinion may be changed. I can be a strong Japanese accuser.

A9. My job is to observe what is the fact and what is not. I ignore my opinion in terms of that.

I apoligy it takes so long time to reply. And I will be off for the rest of the day because my friend is leaving from the United States.

--Flowerofchivalry 22:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

citations[edit]

The third work has been accused by Time Asia. "Those Chinatown Blues." Aug 04, 2003. by Susan Jakes. The second work has been accused by Fujioka, a professor at the University of Tokyo. Fujioka accuses Chang's fabrication of facts and using fabricated and/or misattributed pictures. The other major credible work is "南京事件の総括―虐殺否定の論拠" by Masaaki Tanaka(田中正明). This book declines the existance of the incident by showing huge numbers of evidences. The book indicates mistakes and fabrications Chang made.

I also have to note that a major dispute is going on about Chang's neutrality. Some scholars state that she was paid by the Chinese Government. This also must be noted. --Flowerofchivalry 03:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) see the section above this section, (more questions there) we were editing my page at the same time. I'll be offline until Sunday afternoon or evening, so take your time.Pedant 03:13, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Re : Image:Glenn.jpg > Image:Glenn_Jahnke.jpg[edit]

Hi Pedant,

Done upon request. If you need anything more, feel free to let me know at my talkpage! :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 08:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flowerofchivalry[edit]

Ah, IMO, FoC is something pretty close to a "Holocaust-denial neo-Nazi from Japan". Maybe he doesn't buy into all of the far-right-wing POV that's increasingly common in Japan (I haven't looked at all their edits), but this business of his edits about the Nanking Massacre is more than troubling.

This far-right-wing revisionist historianism in Japan, and its successes in things like getting changes in history books, is a real problem, and I'm very worried that the current Japanese government isn't taking major steps to deal with it, but is rather just appeasing them. Those with good knowledge of Japanese history will remember something very similar in the 1920's - not that I think we're likely to repeat the 1930's, but still... It's as if neo-Nazis in Germany were actually succeeding in writing the Holocaust out of German history books.

Which is not to say that the other parties in this (Hmib, I think is the user's ID) are acting properly, or that all they've said is acceptable, but FoC is a very, very, very long way from blameless here. Noel (talk) 17:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I should make a minor correction here: it's possible that FoC is merely a hard nationalist, and not on the far-right; the two are of course not synonomous (although often found together). Noel (talk) 19:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was certainly droll to read your comment about My only interest is in creating an unbiased factual encyclopedia.

Perhaps you ought to do a little investigation into FoC's views, and this topic, before commenting further. Let me point out to you FoC's comment on the Nanking Massacre:

I have never said Nanking Massacre did not happen. However, I personally believe it did not happen, and I officially claim that there are no known proofs which prove Nanking Massacre happened.

which you may find in this edit.

I can't list all the books in my extensive library which refer to Japanese military excesses against civilian populations in occupied areas during WWII, and Nanking in particular, but may I refer you to:

Meiron Harries, Susan Harries, Soldiers of the Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army (Random House, New York, 1991), pp. 221-230, wherein you will find the action laid out in great detail. Their copious source notes indicate that their account is based primarily on British Foreign Office documents in the Public Record Office, Kew; these documents would be contemporary eye-witnessreports from diplomats. The book also includes data from German (i.e. Axis) diplomats.

Haruko Taya Cook, Theodore F. Cook, Japan at War: An Oral History (New Press, New York, 1992) It doesn't cover it in depth (alas), but it does have a useful summary of the Nanking Massacre on pp 39-40; a few particularly on-point comments are: "The full extent of this atrocity can probably never be ascertained. ... how little those involved are, even today, willing to acknowledge responsibility for what happened during that war." (It's not just those who were involved who refuse to admit what happened, as we can see.)

Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan (HarperCollins, New York, 2000) pp. 333-337 covers it briefly, but it does include a quotation from the diary of a high Japanese Foreign Office official, Ishigari Itaro: "A letter arrived .. reporting in detail on the atrocities of our army in Nanking. It describes a horrendous situation of pillage and rape."

I could go on for a long time, but you get the idea. In light of this, perhaps you can begin to conceive of my disgust as FoC's statement that "I personally believe [the Nanking Massacre] did not happen".

You might also want to look at this paper, A Japanese Historiography of the Nanjing Massacre, by Takeshi Yoshida, which is a good overview of the ideological struggles over this issue.

There are certainly questions which could use debate, about the events at Nanking, and there are equally some problems with Iris Chang's Nanking Massacre book. She's a journalist, not a historian, and it shows in some ways; she also does appear to owe a lot to Bergamini, whom she does have the grace to mention as a source, although perhaps not as fully as she should. (Then again, a historian as well-reputed as Stephen Ambrose has failed on this front too - and Bix's Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, otherwise extremely well regarded, nowhere even mentions Edward Behr's Hirohito: Behind the Myth, which preceded his work by more than a decade in making a re-appraisal of the level of Hirohito's responsibility, the main point of Bix's work.)

However, her book is fairly copiously footnoted as to sources (including many to contemporary newspaper reports and reports from missionaries), and she also did an enormous amount of research for it, including talking to survivors. I believe the Timothy Kelly review is tendentious and focuses on nits, and does not represent a fair overview of the book, which I find to be broadly accurate, the errors not-withstanding, based on my knowledge of the events there from other sources (such as the ones I listed above). This review, which is certainly not gushing, provides, I think, a fairer take on it. Her book certainly is to be praised for rescuing this major tragedy from the "memory hole" for the average person in the West.

However, I have no more interest in debating this issue with FoC, and his "I personally believe it did not happen", than I have in debating whether or not the gas chambers existed with David Irving. Some things are just reprehensible and insufferable, and this wilful disregard for the facts of history is one of them. Noel (talk) 28 June 2005 19:12 (UTC)

Reply from User:Flowerofchivalry[edit]

Hello, Jnc,

First of all, what you wrote here (and everywhere) is your personal opinion (as you said so). I can't get your point, but what is your assertion? Some POVs not mentioned in the article must not be included because it is against your personal opinion?

Second, in my opinion, you seriously lack of history knowledge by confusing "holocaust in Germany" and "the Nanking Incident." If you seriously believe those are identical, prove it please.

Finally, reasoning "FoC is a very, very, very long way from blameless here." Is this because it against your personal POV? --Flowerofchivalry 21:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

comment from pedant, hey this is my page, I can use a level one header here[edit]

Both of you, please. This page is not a page for you to argue on.

Flowerofchivalry If I am to help you, it would be best to not edit the pages under discussion, or to engage in arguments with other editors while we work. I would like to have you explain to me your position, and I will do my best to represent you.

Noel, if you don't mind, could you just not add fuel to the fire? I'd like to resolve this quickly and amicably. If you would like to comment on this matter or on Flowerofchivalry please leave the labels out of it. If you'd really like to help, answer some of the same questions I asked Flowerofchivalry above... that will help me a lot. Thanks.Pedant 03:48, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)

While I found problems at Iris Chang, there are also many biased sentences at Nanking Massacre. I started working which sentences need to be improved. I will post the result here instead of reflecting the result to the article.

I declare that I will follow the Wikipedia guidelines strictly as I have been doing. Also, while the dispute is not at my fault, I will do my best to resolve the dispute peacefully and amicably with your valuable cooperation.

--Flowerofchivalry 28 June 2005 08:26 (UTC)

Thank you, please post right here anything you think needs to be changed in the article, and why, etc. explain as completely as you can. I've been reviewing the histories of the articles in question, but anything you can point out to me that will help explain, feel free to point it out. I wouldn't really worry about the RfC, it will just bring more editors to look at the articles. The more there are, the more likely that the article will become neutral, I'd think. I posted a response briefly summarising what I understand as your position, that's pretty much all that's required of you at this point. I advise letting the Request for Comments just run its course, and see what comments the community has, and go on from there. Let me know if there's more I need to help you with, if I miss something.Pedant

I seriously appreciate your help. I'm easily pissed, and always accept someone's challenge as long as I believe I can win. Instead of getting pissed, I will work on Nanking Massacre to make the article neutral as possible. I don't worry about RfC at all. I think that RfC proves his problems by itself. Yes, and we can get more editors and helps. I just made a fresh resolve to make the articles neutral. Yes, I will.

By the way, when I work on the scientific field, I can be relaxed because of NPOV :D

--Flowerofchivalry 29 June 2005 07:06 (UTC)

Comments about Flowerofchivalry 's RfC...[edit]

...and recent edit disputes on articles relating to events in China after the Battle of Nanking below:

Please address content issues rather than personal issues:

Comments here, in this format please, please sign all comments Pedant 2005 June 29 04:11 (UTC)

Are you still Flowerofchivalry's advocate? -- Xanadu 09:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walmart / Please Explain[edit]

Hi Pedant. Regarding my removal of the Pyramid of the Moon image: The image and caption imply that the Wal-mart is directly next door to the pyramid. This is misleading. A better image would be an overhead view showing both the Wal-mart and the pyramid to give the reader some perspective. Monkeyman 30 June 2005 23:03 (UTC)

I'm happy with the present caption that some diligent editor added, showing the distance between the 2 landmarks. Pedant 18:35, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

Ok great. That was my edit. :)

Monkeyman 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FlowerofChivalry[edit]

Hi Pedant, in case you're still FoC's advocate, he's been reported for 3RR. See here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. FoC e-mailed me to say he has only edited using the FoC user account and that he's being set up, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt and unblocked him. FoC's RfC shows evidence of IP sockpuppetry too, and the IPs used last night to violate 3RR resolve to the same part of the world. Also, after I blocked FoC, a new user account User:HarryWilson was set up to continue reverting to FoC's preferred version, which could have caused FoC's block to be extended to 48 hours for block evasion. Either FoC is a serial reverter and is not being honest with me, or else he is being set up good and proper. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hi P, I just tried to e-mail you regarding Flower, but you haven't specified an address. Would you mind e-mailing me? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Pedant, I've sent you a couple of e-mails about FoC but haven't heard back from you. Could you let me know if you've received them? Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, I got it last night. I haven't had a chance to reply yet, but will today. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Iris Chang[edit]

Can we do something to get her page unprotected, it is seriously unbalanced, failing to cover her works, and spending a good deal of time on her tragic personal details. Stirling Newberry 04:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa-U.N.C.L.E. connections[edit]

Hi, re The Man from U.N.C.L.E. parody section, where did you get the info about references to Tulsa, Oklahoma being an in-joke among viewers? I'm not having much luck finding them on the internet. TulsaTV 19:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old news, pretty well-known by contemporary viewers of the original series. Try the google search for

"The Man from U.N.C.L.E." + Tulsa - wikipedia

and I'm sure you will find plenty. Pedant 19:26, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

I found mainly hits related to info on my own web site, Tulsa TV Memories. On this page, [1], I have three audio clips from "The Indian Affairs Affair" in which Mr. Waverly mentions Tulsa or Oklahoma.

However, just a few days ago, I found a little more support for this thesis. The UNCLE pilot, titled "Solo" (later converted into the first episode, "The Vulcan Affair") has a couple of Oklahoma references. The Patricia Crowley character's cover identity is said to be from "Northridge, Oklahoma" (fictitious, I believe; it's not in this list of OK towns [2]), and her plane tickets show departure from Oklahoma City.

Maybe it's true! TulsaTV 06:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment in my UserTalk area, "the Northridge, Oklahoma reference is because they filmed a whole lot of scenes in Northridge California", that was my guess, too.

Re your comment "the Oklahoma bit is just a running gag. Someone, or so I remember from when it was on the air, someone from the show's production staff was from Tulsa.":

I would like that to be true, I just haven't found much to support it so far. I read Jon Heitland's definitive book about the show, and it mentions nothing about it. Likewise, a good online episode guide expresses skepticism about UNCLE having an office in a city the size of Tulsa.

I'll send Jon Heitland an email and see if he knows more. TulsaTV 09:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Heitland (author of The Man From U.N.C.L.E. Book) replied:

"I'm not aware of any conscious plan to use Oklahoma for in-jokes, although there are the two mentions you listed and a third, I believe, in Alexander the Greater Affair/One Spy Too Many when Dorothy Provine's character talks to Illya, who is posing as the owner of some radio stations in Oklahoma, I think. She says something like 'my friends there tell me they get remarkably good radio reception'.

"It could just be that the L.A. writers, when called upon to think of a non-urban, non-coastal fly-over state, frequently used Oklahoma, just like Solo's aunt in Kansas, or the setting for Iowa Scuba Affair (I live in Iowa). We are all just part of the hinterland to them." TulsaTV 22:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re the existence of the book, "The Catacombs and Dogma Affair", you might also send Mr. Heitland an inquiry. His email address is on his book site (link above). TulsaTV 11:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further research on Tulsa-UNCLE here: [3] TulsaTV 04:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This ([4]) is all that I have found out about Tulsa being an "in-joke" on the show. It doesn't appear to be true. Can you cite any shows, novels, magazines or fanzines to support this notion?

Kiki designs[edit]

Hope you'll visit Wikijunior project Nikki/Kiki character designs to discuss who's design is best. I've found a dozen talented people to create designs. -- user:zanimum

Adminship[edit]

I think I'm ready to become an Admin. I've been here since April 17 (3.5 months in total) and made (at time of posting) 1188 edits (250+ on talks), half major, half minor I'd say. I think I've been nearly everywhere. I'm an active member of the PAC (10 stubs expanded) and made quite a few A Series of Unfortunate Events articles. I've welcomed about 45 new users, been on VfD quite a lot and generally shown cool throughout. Please could you nominate me? (Ps, I came here because I was looking and saw you said this, "However, if you are not an admin, and you meet my criteria, let me know and I would happily nominate you."). Thank you. --Celestianpower ^talk 15:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me in about a week, I'm too busy now to look you over carefully. What is your pet project on wikipedia? What would you do with your mighty admin power? Pedant 22:43, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what a "pet" project is. If it's just one you spend most of your time on the it'd be A Series of Unfortunate Events and the Pokémon Adoption Centre. As for my powers, I am always on my watchlist and quite often see spats of Vandalism so with a revert button, I could spend more time expanding the pokémon stubs, not reverting others' silliness. Also, I know it sounds really stupid, but I like and enjoy advising people. And if I were Admin, perhaps more people would come to me for guidance. I probably wouldn't use them all that much but whenever they're called for, I'd use them. Yeah - answer in a week. No rush. --Celestianpower ^talk 09:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart criticism split[edit]

I'm attempting to establish an solid consensus on whether or not to split Wal-Mart and Criticism of into separate articles. See the vote at Talk:Wal-Mart. Feco 21:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A message from your favorite nephew.[edit]

I don't know how to sed a message so eventually you'll find this and respond to it. My new user is Shashe, and i'll be contributing my BS knowledge I aquire along the way. Anyone else who wants to help me get started can contact me through my user name.

FOC Alert![edit]

Hello Pedant, I was just wondering if you're still FOC's advocate. If so, please make your voice heard, because he's back and is raring for a fight! If you're not, then please tell us. Thanks. -Hmib 00:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's back from his vacation and our peaceful days editing wikipedia are about to be over... you're not obliged to be his 'advocate', you know. -Hmib 08:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much[edit]

Yes, please do nominate me for admin. I'd be delighted. Thank you. Do you think I have a chance? --Celestianpower ^hab 09:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship[edit]

Ped: Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I received many votes from editors that I encounter frequently, which is re-assuring, but I am honoured that you and others that I don't know through Wikipedia saw fit to support the nomination. The admin powers will enable me to patrol for vandals more effectively, amongst other things. I promise to use my new powers for good, and not to inflict the retribution on my enemies that they so richly deserve, as tempting as that may be. ;-) I love your username, by the way! Thanks again, Kevin. Ground Zero 14:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

m:Wikijunior_project_Nikki_character_designs#Least_favourite[edit]

The deadline for using our US$10000 grant from the Beck Foundation, for publishing a Wikijunior book is December. Thus, we need to narrow the competition for Kiki artist down to as few contestants as possible. I'm asking you and anyone that's already discussed current designs to list their three least favourite creations, as votes for elimination. -- [[user:zanimum]

Wikijunior Solar System[edit]

Hello!

I have just begun working on Wikijunior Solar System. I am interested in turning the massive amount of content there into something that kids in the target age group will enjoy reading. You seem very plugged-in, you have your own "focus group" and are involved in fact-checking. I can see you have a lot of irons in the fire, but I wonder if you can offer us a little guidance as we develop this book.

I have made done some editing of two articles: "Solar System" and "Sun". But I'm not entirely happy with my work on "Sun", and I'd like to stop for a breath before I push on.

I am concerned about "reading enjoyment": Readability, Information Density, Volume, and Depth and the "Fun Factor". I am thinking that reading level has to be aimed low end of the age-range. Am I right or wrong?

I am also concerned about fact checking. There is no way to know which facts have been checked and which have not. Citations could be moved into HTML comments after the "fact checking phase" is over.

I think more context would help, too. The link to The "Beck Foundation Company" I found in the wikifoundation pages and in the newsletter (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Quarto/2/En-3) isn't correct, is it? Who are they, why do they want these booklets, how will booklet be branded and distributed, what are the criteria for acceptance, etc.

If you can point me at some resources, I will be grateful. Thanks --Wikibooks:User:SV Resolution 13:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean?[edit]

Hi, I can't make sense of your edit [5]. Who insists that WP is a paper and why is it even relevant there? I think it's a shame that User:Irishpunktom is allowed to turn Current events into anti-Israel soapbox. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 20:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiJunior solar System[edit]

Thanks for getting back to me. I have been trying to get more information about the Beck Foundation and what they want the books for, but have had no luck so far. I'll try User:Zaminum as you suggested. The articles I am referring to start at [6], and I think the whole thing needs to be reviewed for readability and "coolness". If you know anyone who would like to do this, they go on over there and leave their comments in the talk pages. I am sure it will help the project.

Thanks for your interest! Wikibooks:User:SV Resolution 2005-08-25

AMA Request for Assistance - An Advocate Needed[edit]

Could you please help?

I have been a positively contributing editor of the polygamy article since the end of last year, with numerous amounts of knowledge on the subject. However, I have subsequently been attacked by POV anti-polygamists who have undermined the article with their POV agenda and who now consistently prevent me from editing anything in it since the end of April. I have produced volumes of evidence of the abuse in the TALK pages, which anti-polygamists have even attempted to hide by "archiving."

On July 18, 2005, I made an AMA Request for Assistance - An Advocate Needed, requesting AMA help from Kmweber. They quickly agreed to help, but needed a few days due to a new real world job. As of this writing, I have yet to ever hear from them again (which is starting to concern me at this point). That's why I am now seeking your help, if you are willing. (As you can see, I am a patient person, but recent events of abuse have given me need to speed up the process, if possible.)

Recently, in the ongoing dispute, while we were in the middle of a resolution process, someone else interfered and "offered to help." When I was not willing to accept their interference due to specific concerns, they ignored me and started an entire new set-up. All which had preceded that interference had then become ignored. Instead, I was falsely accused of refusing to seek rsolution. Then a Requests for comment/Researcher99 page was created and I was fully set-up.

I have made a chronology there to bring you up to speed on all of the relevant history of the problem. I know it's a lot to read, but I have really been through a lot! I really do need a sincere and dedicated AMA's help.

Could you please help? If you could, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks.

Researcher 00:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rosicrucian article[edit]

Dear user Pedant, as I have seen a edition of yours at the article Rosicrucian, I come to request your support to this article that I have just purposed for nomination at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Rosicrucian. May you may give a look into it? And, if you consider it acceptable, then may you support it? Thank you! :) --GalaazV 02:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijunior Solar System Needs You[edit]

... and/or your students.

Danny Wool has challenged us to get Wikijunior Solar System out to hurricane evacuees by October 3 2005. This is going to be tough!

You expressed interest in WikiJunior. Would you be willing now to join the push to get Wikijunior Solar System completed? Come see Wikijunior Solar System!

Thanks --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not SV Resolution, but here's what you can do. Right now we are in the proofreading stage. Hopefully, this book will be printed by October 3 (although it's not likely at the rate we're going) Not all the modules in Wikijunior:Solar System] are going to go into the print version. The ones that are have a proofreading notice on them. SV Resolution has made up a four-step proofreading process. Click on the "read the plan" link on the notice and you'll see the four steps. At each stage you can sign up to do one task for each section. For example, you could sign up at Stage 4 (Copyediting) to copyedit "What is it made of?" Look at The modules for Pluto, Neptune, or Uranus to see it in action. Thanks for your help!--Shanel 23:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS I changed your wikibooks user page so there's a link to your user page here :)--Shanel 00:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant -- Thanks for offering to help! You can pick any one of the solar system modules. How about b:Wikijunior_Solar_System/The_Sun? The proofreading plan is spelled out at b:Talk:Wikijunior_Solar_System/The_Sun/Proofreading. And if you have any tips for improving our collaborative proofreading process, We'll appreciate hearing them, too. Thanks --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply about Glen(n)[edit]

Nice try, but I am not a WP administrator. Have an admin do it for me since one page has to be temporarily deleted (which only admins can do) before revision occurs. --SuperDude 06:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop[edit]

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 19:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bajoran wormhole test[edit]

I've deleted this redirect per WP:CSD. It is generally considered inappropriate to create a link from the main encyclopedia namespace into your own userspace. Yours, R adiant _>|< 22:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

that makes sense, I guess it should have been in the wikipedia namespace in the first place? Pedant 06:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-)[edit]

Should have used an edit summary... oh well, almost perfect, eh? :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 23:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Facts[edit]

You been doing any more with those NASA Facts papers? Sorta curious as I havent heard anything in a while. ALKIVAR™ 01:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deadbeat dad[edit]

You did not make the category name plural, i.e. Category:Deadbeat dads, and surely you do not have it in for just Rusty Harding alone. Also, I changed the cat from "Law" to "Family law" -- Emact 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

I am :-) I'm still kinda editing, even though the break is underway... I just really want to get the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II article done. Any chance of some assistance? I have specific sources of info that I need help in summarising. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Man and dog.png[edit]

Though I didn't replace it in the articles, I created a modified image of Image:Man and dog.jpg sans the green eyes. What are your thoughts on it? --DrBat 14:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA[edit]

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops[edit]

I feel bad...I was the first person to leave you a talk message and it wasn't a welcome template... — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MINUSTAH article[edit]

Thank you for adding a lot of sources and information to the MINUSTAH article I wrote. I wrote it in the hopes that just this thing would happen. Information is power.Billy P 21:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Coordinator Election[edit]

Dear AMA Member,

You are entitled to vote in the AMA Coordinator election, set to begin at midnight on 3 February 2006. Please see the pages on the election and its candidates and the procedure and policy and cast a vote by e-mail!

Wally 11:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA[edit]

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome.Gator (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Rikki_closeup.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rikki_closeup.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)