Talk:PDF (disambiguation)/Pdfpdf's rant


 * The first problem here is, (and believe me and assume good faith, I am trying very hard to be objective), JediLofty has NO knowledge of the subject matter (he has admitted this). He is arguing purely and solely from a Manual-of-Style POV; in so doing he is introducing errors of fact. He has categorised these errors-of-fact as "trivial", without having any knowledge that they are errors, or how significant these errors are - i.e. he has insufficient knowledge (and interest - also admitted by him) to firstly, know that they are errors, and secondly, know how significant these errors are. (He has also implied that he doesn't care that he's introducing errors, but that is another matter.)


 * It seems that the ONLY thing he is concerned about (or interested in) is the MoS; he appears to have NO interest in the accuracy or quality of the information. It seems he doesn't care what's there, just as long as it looks pretty and is presented according to "the rules". Which, of course, are not rules - they are guidelines.


 * He makes the comment: "I gave up on that argument (my argument about maintaining the manual of style fell on deaf ears)." No, it didn't fall on deaf ears. I answered EVERY point he raised at GREAT length. Just because I didn't give him the answers he wanted to hear doesn't mean his "argument" "fell on deaf ears". (And just to add some irony to this, I am in fact "legally" deaf, but that doesn't affect my ability to think, read and type!!)


 * We have discussed this matter at absurd length; I have made numerous suggestions and concessions in the hope of achieving consensus, but none of them have been acceptable to JediLofty. Despite four requests by me for him to suggest a solution that would address both my concerns and his, the first 3 times he ignored the request, and the fourth time he simply chose to exit from the discussion by saying that the matter was trivial and not worth discussing.


 * Some time after these discussions, he made another edit which introduced another error. Given the absurd length of the previous discussion, I couldn't be bothered to get involved. But now he has made a third edit. Given our lengthy discussion, and therefore his awareness (if not knowledge) of the issues, I can only assume vandalism; HE has NEVER made any attempt to achieve consensus. It appears he has his own POV, and has NO interest in considering the fact that any other POV might exist, let alone making any attempt to determine what an NPOV might be.


 * I'm not altogether sure what consensus he's asking for. It seems to me that he's asking for people to ignore the real world and the facts, and simply make sure that WP follows the MoS. Given that I thought WP is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, I have assumed that it's supposed to be factual, accurate and reliable. Perhaps I'm wrong? Pdfpdf 16:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)