User talk:Stickler4accuracy2

== Pibroch ==
Before my editing, the article said "there is some disagreement surrounding the terminology." I think people agree that the totality of traditional Scottish Highland music is divided between ceòl mór ("big music") and ceòl beag ("little music"), and that within this universe, bagpipe music straddles both types. Where the disagreement comes is that pipers use the terms pìobaireachd and the simplified "pibroch" to mean ceòl mór strictly played on the bagpipe; but others have wanted to use the term for similar music on their instruments. The pipers would strictly be correct simply because of the Gaelic root pìob meaning "pipe." There would be less confusion if other instrumentalists would always use terms specific to their instruments. Sometimes they do: "fiddle ceòl mór," "harp ceòl mór." However, they don't always (probably because the other terms are not as widely recognized). Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive, not normative. Therefore, we are stuck with saying "pibroch" encompasses all ceòl mór. It is worth pointing out, as I have done, that this broadening of meaning represents English practice.Stickler4accuracy2 (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should say that "this broadening of meaning of the word pibroch represents recent English practice." I don't have access to the OED, but the Dictionary of the Scots Language reference kindly provided by Prof Wrong clearly defines pibroch to be pipe music. The last representative usage of the word in that source is 1963.Stickler4accuracy2 (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some site policies and guidelines you don't seem to be aware of

"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research.
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This does mean that Wikipedia sides with mainstream academia and journalism.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia or journalism. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment). This specifically excludes blogs such as consensus911.org.

Also, everyone here is "self-appointed" because this is a volunteer site, but an assumption of good faith is made for those who are here to build an encyclopedia. However, we do not welcome anyone who is here to "right great wrongs", use the site as a platform for their beliefs, or is just not here to build a neutral encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to read sources you cite: The article you cite says "In 2008, doubters of the official account of the attacks — sometimes called truthers — were told by the arbitration committee not to edit the main page on the attacks". In other words, the official account is all but policy here. Also, that source only demonstrates that some conspiracy theorists have tried to muck up the article, not that the official findings are "widely disputed." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of 9/11 discretionary sanctions

--MONGO 11:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]