User talk:Tbrittreid/Archive/2009/July

What policy actually says
(emphasis added) "When quoting a sentence fragment that ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside." But if it doesn't communicate a complete sentence? The general theme of Wikipedia's "logical usage" argues that it shouldn't. Granted, the version you want to change it to is not specifically forbidden here; some weasel room has been added. But since you're the one trying to change it, the burden is on you to justify the need for that change, with a real policy. WP:PUNCT very clearly explains that the "USA usage" you keep citing is not Wikipedia policy. Neither is "British usage". Regardless of the nationality of the subject, Wikipedia has its own usage. You don't agree with it; that's your right. You can be excused for not knowing about too. But citing a rule that doesn't exist ("USA quoting for USA subjects") is not responsible editing. It's imposing yourpreference and trying to justify it with an imaginary rule. I assume you really believed it to be true, but when I pointed out that you were mistaken you didn't check, you repeated your assumption. Please cut it out. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to draw your attention to the opening statement in WP:Verifiability, which is one of the three core policies of Wikipedia (emphasis mine): "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The information as presented before your latest edit contained a citation from a rather well-researched and credible documentary.  If you can cite multiple and/or better sources that support your declaration that it is incorrect, then you are welcome to remove the citation I made and change the article accordingly.  But lacking that, you are editing in defiance of Wikipedia policies, and I'm asking you again to stop. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That is another Wikipedia policy that is illogical and detrimental-to-the-encyclopedia crap. (Note to administrators: The other is detailed in my response to his first post above on his own talk page.) I'll have those sources tomorrow. BTW, just check the infobox image: There is a source to the contrary right there! If that documentary is "well-researched," then it does not say any such thing. If it says that, then it is not "credible," because the statement is simply not true. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you're watching this page Jason, but my sources are up now. BTW, I watched the documentary clip via youtube, and it does indeed say what you claim, which means that everything sourced to that production needs new sources. It is not "well-researched and credible" in the least. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Jeez! I can't believe that I forgot to say the main thing I had in mind when I came in and made the above post yesterday. Since I agreed to produce alternate sources for the dispute at hand, my disagreeing with the policy cited by Jason was basically irrelevant and should not have been mentioned; and even if I had had a good reason for saying so, the vulgarity was absolutely unnecessary. My apologies for both (but I don't actually back down from my feelings about that reg, mind you). --Tbrittreid (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)