User talk:Pinethicket

"I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it." Capt. Woodrow F. Call.

Welcome to Pinethicket's Talk Page
Leave messages here, and I'll respond as soon as possible on this page

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carya_ovata_range_map.jpg that you posted

Wondering if you would know how to edit this map, and/or contact the creator of this map? Its completely inaccurate, as Shagbark Hickory grows extensively throughout Vermont, in fact, I picked about 100 Shagbark Hickory nuts today on my hike in Colchester VT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyryde (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Joyryde[reply]

Range maps are a glitchy thing. Are you sure that the shagbarks are natural--i.e., not planted? No editing on that map; source info for the map is located on the image summary. You can look for better range maps or modify the text if you can document the species is in your area. Wonder if your local botanists are aware that the trees are there? You might contact the people who administer your state's herbarium. Regards. Pinethicket (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We see them on almost every hike we do, I'm not experienced with editing anything on Wikipedia, but was extremely surprised that the page claims that they aren't here; they're pretty easy to locate and are definitely VERY wild and in remote locations. I just took photos of some this weekend, and carried home 2 pounds of nuts to eat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.131.33 (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The range map shows them in the southwestern part of the state, the northwestern tip, and the southeastern part, and then it shows shagbark occurring on into Canada. So it is all around that area. So it does not surprise me so much that there might be scattered areas where it is common. The state herbarium for many states will show county occurrences of species. You might see if there is one for your state. Pinethicket (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong undo-ing

Earlier I tried to edit he page for September 12 by saying that it was National Video Game Day. This is a semi-significant holiday, and it is true. I would like you to not just blow off what I said just because it said the words video games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.39.139 (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your linking that long sentence looked suspicious to me; it was not correct but it was also not vandalism--sorry! I see that wikipedia does not have a page for that day. So it becomes an issue of finding a reliable reference and formatting the entry correctly. I got a hit for the day but but not one I considered reliable. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at the front of the article state that people and events have to have an existing Wikipedia page (blue linked). Since no page exists for your day, it does not qualify. My understanding is that a reference, even a reliable one, would not suffice. Rules, damn rules, and Wikipedia! You can always write the article for the day. Pinethicket (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of starting a conspiracy

To Pinethicket: I have followed the Wiki "Rocket" article for 4 years and am disappointed that it does not seem to be coming together. I see your name frequently, especially where other editors are restoring things you have written that someone else has deleted. For this reason I assume you are one of the more respected editors of this article. Since I have had little success in influencing the course of this article, I am hoping to interest a collaborator who is likewise interested in moving the article along.

By way of introduction,my name is Dean Black and I can be contacted at mdeanblack@yahoo.com. I built my first rocket in 1955 after Eisenhower announced the Vanguard program and later worked for Bell Labs on the Safeguard ABM system and for Rocketdyne on J-2, F-1 and SSME. I am now retired. My first job was with Estes during summers when I was an undergrad in college. I designed kits and wrote for Estes Model Rocket News. That was a long time ago, back in the mid 60s, but I have always liked writing for young people interested in rocketry. I have an e-book on Rocket History that is a PDF file of about 170 pages.

The "Rocket" article has many references but seems to have difficulty staying on subject. The first 2 sentences describe a rocket as "missile, spacecraft, aircraft, vehicle...and...reaction device", none of which are unique to a rocket. Anything that accelerates is a reaction device and even a spacecraft can be propelled by solar sails or other unique means. None of these, therfor, define a rocket, even though they may be used to describe some applications of rocket engines. There are more serious problems with the article, however. One of the more irksome is the persistent nonsense chart on mass ratios, etc. which contains data (i.e. 39.9 mass ratio for Saturn V)that is utter nonsense. This chart is rubbish but will not go away. Between the nit-picky use of imprecise words and the outrageous presentation of imaginary data, there are a lot of amateurish explanations of rocket-related things--as well as unrelated things--that could be spruced up or deleted. I would like to see the article become more concise, clearer and better illustrated. Much of the mediocre content is "well defended". Getting past that is problematic without some means of engaging the defenders in discussions with some actual technical content. Is this a lost cause? I'm up for any suggestions.Magneticlifeform (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest, Magneticlifeform. My edits on the rocket page have strictly been from the standpoint of eliminating vandalism or poor editing (RCP work). I have no technical knowledge or expertise in the rocket field. I would suggest putting some of your ideas for improving the article on the article's talk page and see what other editors say. You might get some response, you might not, but it might be worth a try. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Euclid's lemma

I made the recent revision on Euclid's lemma. I forgot to log in before. My rationale is on the talk page for that article. Thanks for your vigilance. Gaiacarra (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Putting a message in the edit summary--See talk page: "Euclidean proof" is overkill--wuda prevented the conflict. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jabiyan

You just reverted an IP who I presume is the same as TheJabiyan (talk · contribs) - a hoaxer so far as I can tell. I'm cleaning up after both. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger danger

Hi Pinethicket. Thank You to the Edits you made to the Stranger danger and Thriller (Song) Articles. I apreciate your contributions to these and i will use the Sandbox for my future edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.61.147 (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ireland: Thanks for the heads up. Your message will serve as a reminder to watch your edits. Have a nice day! Pinethicket (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 15:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James Reasoner may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*Appomattox (2003_

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for In vitro diagnostics

An article that you have been involved in editing, In vitro diagnostics, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ian McDonald (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Act edit

Hi Pinethicket,

I haven't done much editing, so please bear with me if I'm just missing something or not understanding how it works!

On the Sugar Act page, I noticed that the words "Bold text" were seemingly randomly inserted into the middle of the word "thereafter" in the background section, so that it read "Shortly therea'Bold text'fter, George Grenville replaced Bute." This obviously looked like a formatting mistake or typo, so I edited it to read just "Shortly thereafter, George Grenville replaced Bute." I checked the page after editing it to make sure that it had worked, and it seemed fine. Nothing else was changed, and the random words were gone.

Can you let me know why you decided to undo that? I checked the Sugar Act page again just now, and it's back to having "Bold text" in the middle of the word "therafter."

Thanks! Sorry again if I'm just not understanding something (or if I'm doing something wrong with this response format!).

2602:306:CE4A:7490:C107:A209:FE07:3FE5 (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I made a mistake--sorry! It would of helped had you used the edit summary and stated something like: removed unnecessary bold. Thanks for your effort to clean the page up! Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for the vandalism cleanup work. Pine^✉ 06:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That means a lot to me coming from a kindred spirit! Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning sawing in Lousiana 1757

Hi, Pinethicket, thanks for your contributions! I had originally dismissed, and left out, the incident concerning the guy who allegedly was sawn to death in Louisiana, since the primary source has been held as rather untrustworthy. Since you've chosen to include him, I've added a few comments to your entry.Arildnordby (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Arildnordby; thanks for the heads-up. I imagine if I have nightmares tonite, it will be about the French wheel and not the saw. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you slept well! An antidote to getting nightmares is to delve deep into them wide awake, until you get so used to their content it no longer bothers you. Then nothing will ever disturb your peace of mind. :-)Arildnordby (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No wheels or saws last nite. I'm returning to my anti-vandalism work today; that is frightful enough! Pinethicket (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PsiEpsilon#12 October 2013

You may want to comment there about the IP 110.172.23.136. Regards, M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 11:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horse flies vs. bottle flies

Hey there, I added some info to the horse fly entry about how green bottle flies will chase off horse flies and you undid it for want of a reference. I have been unable to find a scholarly reference, but I felt the need to add it from personal experience. Is this knowledge to be hidden from humanity? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.172.9 (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, personal experience is not acceptable (see: WP:NOR). It has to be supported by a reliable reference. Rules, damn rules and Wikipedia. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to improve

Elton article--94.228.193.11 (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]