User talk:WoLok

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Courtkittie 21:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

American Hiroshima
I removed the dates because they are all speculative, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. At the time I removed them, two had already been passed, and a third has passed since then. That leaves three, which I honestly expect to pass without nuclear incidents. I could speculate that Al Qaeda will detonate a nuclear device on my birthday, but in the absence of evidence, it's no more notable or encyclopedic than any other date.

As for "conspiracy theory", I'm not wedded to that term. I used it because it's a label that people will understand, and one that's reasonably close to the truth. Do you have a suggestion for a better one? And do you hav any additional citations that you could share, as I agree that the article as a whole could use a little help.

Ken talk 21:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Further replies on my talk page. Ken talk 00:50, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Another reply on my talk page. Ken talk 03:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. The history of the article speaks for itself: it was created, I did a little cleanup and clarified things so someone wouldn't just speedy delete it. A week later, several dates get added, with no references. I did a little checking, could find nothing about those specific dates (As I've mentioned, at the time they mentioned years, and I could find no sources for particular years for any of the dates that were mentioned), so I removed them as speculation. They didn't improve the article in any way at that time. We had some heated discussion, which boiled down to me asking you (or someone) to include proper attribution for speculations, and you offering insults.

You've now added the dates back in, attributed them to their source, and made various other improvements to the article. It's not only much better than it was, it's certainly much better and more encyclopedic than all the gamecruft, forumcruft, bandcruft, etc. that Wikipedia is packed with. Congratulations!

So what's with the ad hominem arguments and accusations of argumentum ad ignorantiam? When I removed those dates, I gave a reason based in Wikipedia policy. You may not like the policy, but this is Wikipedia. You can either work within the policy, work to change the policy, or go elsewhere (which is paraphrased from another policy which I don't feel like looking up).

Ken talk 04:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not dictate whether I can be dissappointed with another editor's decision. An editor who cites Wikipedia policy does not thereby construct a shield against other writers expressing their dissappointment with an editorial decision, then explaining the reasons for such dissappointment, as I did before editing the article in question. WoLok 04:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)