Hmm1994

Welcome!

Hi Hmm1994! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Deltaspace42 (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good on you for all those edits, even with such a new account. Thank you for everything you're doing. You're a real, hard-working asset to the site and a pleasure to work with. I'm a big true-crime guy too, so I'm sure we won't see the last of each other! — That Coptic Guy (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Appreciate it. Hmm1994 (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Undefined reference

Hi, in this edit you introduced an sfn reference "Shane 2009". Unfortunately you did not define the reference so nobody can look it up and the article is placed in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could fix this it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. I deleted it just now since the same information is already cited in pages 7-8 of the 9/11 Commission Report. There are so many references in there that I don't actually remember what the "Shane 2009" thing was exactly; if I can find a working link listed elsewhere, I'll let you know. Hmm1994 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Time of the September 11 attacks

Hi I see you added the footnote so let me explain my edit more. The impact of American Airlines Flight 11 at 8:46 am is in the lead, it does not also need to be included in the footnote as the fate of the plane is not necessary, only the time the attack started. Aaron106 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t add that footnote, sorry. Did you message the wrong person? Hmm1994 (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe so haha, no worries --Aaron106 (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey I would suggest we don't need the commonly believed to be at 8:46am part as the footnote tells us it began at 8:14 am with the hijacking. People will understand that's what the footnote is there for --Aaron106 (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I dunno. I feel its inclusion is comparable to the other footnote describing when the attacks *ended.* The 10:03 footnote insinuates that it’s commonly believed that the attacks concluded with the collapse of the North Tower, when in actual fact they ended with the crash of United 93. Hmm1994 (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree the second footnote definitely needs the 10:28 part, but with this one I don't believe it does. --Aaron106 (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It would look a bit inconclusive i guess. --Aaron106 (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I restored your original footnote, Yes i'm not sure how you could fix it. --Aaron106 (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The original footnote wasn’t added by me, I just wrote the streamlined version of it (“Although it is commonly believed…”). My personal feeling on the matter is that if the 10:28 thing is mentioned, the 8:46 time should be included as well.

However, I did think of a compromise that will enable us to remove the 8:46 piece without potentially confusing readers: it could be mentioned briefly that people were injured/killed on that plane, which really sells the “attack” aspect in my opinion. I think leaving it at, “a group of five took control of the plane” might be a tad bit ambiguous since it doesn’t really clarify that they took control of the plane by force, even if that’s kind of a given. What say you? Hmm1994 (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Modify this below so I could see what your thinking of and how it would look. --Aaron106 (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The hijackers began their first attack at 8:14 a.m., when a group of five took control of American Flight 11. They then crashed that plane into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m., which was the first crash of the attacks.

Two versions:

1. “The hijackers began their first attack at 8:14 a.m., when a group of five took control of American Flight 11, stabbing several people on-board before forcing their way into the plane’s cockpit.”

2. “The hijackers began their first attack at 8:14 a.m., when a group of five took control of American Flight 11, stabbing several people on-board (and possibly killing one) before forcing their way into the plane’s cockpit.” Hmm1994 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I like it. I'm fine with either one you choose. --Aaron106 (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad we could find a solution. Hmm1994 (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking for the second footnote you could shortern this bit down:

from

1. “The fourth and final hijacked plane of the attacks was crashed in a Pennsylvania field at 10:03 a.m. w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ c̶o̶n̶c̶l̶u̶d̶e̶d̶ t̶h̶e̶ a̶t̶t̶a̶c̶k̶s̶ o̶n̶e̶ h̶o̶u̶r̶ a̶n̶d̶ f̶o̶r̶t̶y̶-̶n̶i̶n̶e̶ m̶i̶n̶u̶t̶e̶s̶ a̶f̶t̶e̶r̶ t̶h̶e̶y̶ b̶e̶g̶a̶n̶, a̶s̶ a̶l̶l̶ o̶f̶ t̶h̶e̶ a̶t̶t̶a̶c̶k̶e̶r̶s̶ w̶e̶r̶e̶ n̶o̶w̶ d̶e̶a̶d̶ a̶n̶d̶ a̶l̶l̶ o̶f̶ t̶h̶e̶ h̶i̶j̶a̶c̶k̶e̶d̶ p̶l̶a̶n̶e̶s̶ w̶e̶r̶e̶ d̶e̶s̶t̶r̶o̶y̶e̶d̶. However, the attackers' damage continued as the North Tower kept burning for an additional 25 minutes, until it ultimately collapsed by 10:28 a.m.”

to

2. “The fourth and final hijacked plane of the attacks was crashed in a Pennsylvania field at 10:03 a.m. However, the attackers' damage continued as the North Tower kept burning for an additional 25 minutes, until it ultimately collapsed by 10:28 a.m.”

As in contrast with the first footnote it won't look too lenthy. --Aaron106 (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s necessary to clarify not just that 10:03 was the time the attacks ended, but also why it was the time the attacks ended. I think removing the “one hour and forty-nine minutes” part is fine but the rest should stay, in my humble opinion. Hmm1994 (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. Aaron106 (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

8:14 ambiguity

Hi on the Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks at 8:13:52 "Sector 46 controller Pete Zalewski instructs Flight 11 to climb to 35,000 feet twice, but receives no reply. He informs the Athens Sector controller that the flight is "NORDO" (no radio). Boston Center continues to attempt to re-establish contact with the flight without success". Wouldn't this not imply that the hijacking was occuring because it says at 8:14 a.m. is when they took over the plane. --Aaron106 (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

That’s why I added the circa symbol to the 8:14 time on the September 11 attacks page; it might’ve been slightly before 8:14, but was definitely around then. Hmm1994 (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, also I was wondering your take on this since my suggestion has had no replies yet. I added this to the talk page Talk:September 11 attacks#9/11 memorial pool suggesting that the 9/11 memorial should not be shown in the infobox as the pictures are about the events that took place on September 11th 2001, and rather could be added to the memorial section instead. September 11 attacks#Memorials --Aaron106 (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Shut Up and Dance (Black Mirror), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Doing analysis of characters like this without a source that does the analysis is original research(see WP:NOR) Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 13:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Roost. I added that section back in, but this time I backed it up with several sources including at least one that I've seen being used on another Wikipedia article. I'm sorry for not citing my claims initially, I was mainly trying to elaborate on how the casting directors of the episode quite clearly wanted to go in the direction opposite to what one would expect. It's obvious that Kenny's age was a big part of the whole "shock factor" of the reveal; he doesn't fit the mold, so to speak, and most people wouldn't think someone who looks so young is capable of doing such things. Hmm1994 (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It pains me to make a revert like this where so much time and intelligent research has clearly gone into the edit, Hmm1994, but I have reverted your most recent addition.

On the plot changes: I've kept what I could, but the time frame is inference not found in the plot itself (why 2 days and not 9?). We shouldn't have described it as "The next day", but just a consequent "At work" makes the chronology clear as concisely as possible without delving into these details that can be argued over. And we are still a few words over 400 so more is no good (sure, one person just adds 20 words but then the next person comes along, then the next, then the next, ...).

On the Through the Black Mirror paragraph: I appreciated your original paragraph addition and I think the source was a great find, and the sort of academic writing about Black Mirror that is a bit lacking in our articles. However, I think you are perhaps adjusting to Wikipedia writing expectations from some other background of general essay-writing. On Wikipedia, we are very, very tight about editorial voice and about rigid sourcing: combining a source about Black Mirror with a criminology source about young paedophiles is excellent in academia, but original research or synthesis here.

Our aim is not to make original or even "obvious" points about the episode, but to summarise clearly the points made by others. Here, we have a source that comments on the construction of Kenny's youth from a filmmaking perspective, but we do not have a source that comments on Kenny as an adolescent paedophile (19 in the UK is an adult and, as Through the Black Mirror notes, that age doesn't actually make it into the episode itself). Nor is the "dirty old men" trope something that an expert said relates to Kenny.

While this part is fine from a sourcing perspective, it is redundant to the earlier part of the sentence, and I think the paragraph previously struck a good balance between concision and detail: "noting that his childlike features and mannerisms represent a sharp contrast from the stereotypical representation that many have come to expect". I notice Through the Black Mirror had more information, but we don't want one source to dominate the analysis section, however good-quality it is. I think the point you want to make about Kenny's youth is clearly made as is, without violating policy. — Bilorv (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem, Bilorv. That's fair, I understand why you reverted it. Also, after what you mentioned about the word count, I went ahead and managed to reduce it down to precisely 400 words, so hopefully that resolves the problem of the article exceeding the limit (my edit summary is misleading, by the way; I missed out one word when pasting it into a word counter, hence why I claimed it was just under 400 in the edit reason). Hmm1994 (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Excellent work overall—some very clever word cuts that don't remove any information. I've just made a tweak or two here. (Personally, I thought it was clear as soon as the other paedophile asks how young the subjects were, but we've had lots of unregistered readers disputing that it's clear until Kenny's mother calls.) — Bilorv (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

In fairness, I think the other paedophile asking Kenny, “How young were they?” is just meant to put you on alert by implying Kenny might be a paedophile like him. The purpose of the phone call from his mother is twofold: it’s part of the episode’s double twist where the hackers leak everything regardless, but it also serves as your final confirmation that the leadup to the fight scene wasn’t the other paedophile misreading the situation—Kenny really is a paedophile after all, so I understand why some people only fully understood the twist when his mother calls him. Hmm1994 (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a strange one. I felt like I had been punched in the gut when the other paedophile asks "How young were they?" We have some people who deny entirely that Kenny was masturbating to images of children, and think he was framed, but both critical consensus and Brooker are clear on this point, and we can at least state that by the end of the episode Kenny has been revealed as a paedophile. — Bilorv (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

New

You need to do something about people reverting your edits without explanation. I did correct the destroy time but 9:58:59 a.m. as the start of the collapse of 2 WTC from NIST and the 9/11 Commission are most credible. Aaron106 (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think there's much I can do. I've posted two messages on Miked1992's talk page about this and Miked is either somehow unaware of them or just doesn't want to respond. I appreciate the support, though―thanks for that. Hmm1994 (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If he does it again post it to Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents they will take care of it. --Aaron106 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Last thing, the part about the South Tower collapse time is currently unsourced in September 11 attacks. You could add your one to it. Aaron106 (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, good idea. Thanks for the suggestion. Added it. Hmm1994 (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, it happened again. I may have to file a complaint. Hmm1994 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 175

My apologies for the edit you have just reverted. I afraid I didn't read enough of the text.

Now going to sit in a darkened room for a while!!!

Best regards,

David, David J Johnson (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

No problem at all, David! Hmm1994 (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

1993 Bombing

Hi Hmm, I was noticing on the 1993 WTC bombing page the time shows as 12:17 pm although most sources show the time being 12:18 pm. Is there an official report into the 1993 bombing? most sources including 9/11 commission indicate it occuring at 12.18pm Aaron106 (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that if even the 9/11 Commission says it was 12:18, then that’s what it probably was. Hmm1994 (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This part in the Attack section "Twelve minutes later, at 12:17:37 p.m., the bomb exploded in the underground garage, generating an estimated pressure of 150,000 psi." Comes from a book called Reeve? (1999). There's no source to it at all linked, I'm very curious as to where they got the seconds in the time from. Aaron106 (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I changed the time to 12:18 p.m., referencing the Commission Report. I decided not to remove the "Reeve (1999)" citation, because it's possible the time of the detonation is not what that source was originally added for. Hmm1994 (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Collapse time

Hi on the Collapse of the World Trade Center page, The jet fuel melting the steel beams would eventually cause the collapse, but the actual collapse initiated first at 9:58 in the South Tower. I would change the time to that. Aaron106 (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Hello, Hmm1994. You have new messages at Tarl N.'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help submitting United Airlines Flight 175 as a Featured Article

I noticed you were a major editor in the United Airlines Flight 175 and was wondering if you could help submit it to be a featured article, it is the only 9/11 flight that is not. Thank you and please respond. Darth-Wiki-Man - (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Darth — Sure thing. How can I help? Hmm1994 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I already tried to submit it to be an FA and got declined because I am not a major editor for the article. I was wondering if you could try to please submit it because you are a significant editor to the page. Darth-Wiki-Man - (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I’ll see what I can do. Hmm1994 (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Darth-Wiki-Man - (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

No rush, but by any chance did you submit the request yet? Darth-Wiki-Man - (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I did ask around, but I think our best bet would be to open a peer review for the page first. I was told it seems to qualify as a good article already, so we may not need to do much work to improve it. Hmm1994 (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Darth-Wiki-Man - (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Hello! We start a discussion and then wait for replies, hopefully consensus, before making changes. In other words, we don't do this. Best wishes SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the now blocked user Becausewhynothuh? behavior towards you in his edit summaries on the Northeastern United States. They are extremely uncivil and downright disruptive and I genuinely hope it didn't scare you off of continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. Trust me when I say that he is a extremely bad example of user conduct on the site. I hope you can continue to contribute in the future. —JJB^ers 18:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

JJBers - Oh, no, you did nothing wrong. His response did make me think I was at risk of being blocked, which is why I apologized here. I'm glad it's all sorted now, though. Thank you! :) Hmm1994 (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Stop removing text from 9/11 related articles.

Multiple times now you have removed swaths of information from articles related to the 9/11 attacks without reason as well as needlessly "rewritten" text with zero benefit. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll respond to each reversion individually.

1. I had a reason to remove that source. It was the only one in the lead section and it is common for sources to be omitted from the lead per WP:WHENNOTCITE. It also seems unnecessary to mention that 7 WTC collapsed six hours later because culturally, 10:28 is the time people would be mistakenly thinking of when they hear "the time when the attacks ended", same with 8:46 for when they started. In fact, the article was glued to the 8:46 and 10:28 times for years, with no mention of the attacks ending at 5:21 anywhere. And taken to its logical conclusion, if you're going to include the collapse of 7 WTC, why not every other building that collapsed or needed to be demolished in the days, weeks, months and years that followed? If you wish to expand the scope of the explanatory footnote beyond the 10:28 time, it could be reworded as, "...until [the North Tower] collapsed at 10:28, in turn causing further destruction," which is more inclusive than what was said about 7 WTC.

2. This edit was a write-up I had done a month or so in advance, so perhaps I was too ambitious, but I was acting in good faith. There may have been some things here and there that I did wrong, e.g., I forgot to remove the states after the airport names and some may have felt it was unnecessary to mention the states it was flying over when it was hijacked, but edits like the removal of the registration code from the lead don't seem problematic, and saying the plane was "hijacked on the morning of September 11, 2001, as part of the September 11 attacks" is redundant per WP:OBVIOUS, which is why I changed it to "hijacked as part of the September 11 attacks in 2001."

3.: I'm unsure of what the issue with describing it as a partial failure or partial success is. Yes, the terrorists failed to attack D.C., but if the passengers were 100% successful, they'd still be alive. Regardless, how did I remove the detail about the passengers thwarting the plans? My edit said the hijackers' main objective was thwarted.

Also, the hijacking didn't commence 46 minutes into the flight like this restoration (which reinstated the "partial failure" comment you took issue with) implies. The evidence is that the pilots were attacked by 9:28:05 a.m., but the hijackers obviously did not teleport into the cockpit, so that pushes it to 9:27 at the latest. Hmm1994 (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Editing comments

I reverted your edits to Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. It's considered very bad form to edit your posts after someone has already replied to them. They replied to your comment as it was, not how you wish it had been written.

It's especially egregious to edit those comments months after the fact. If you need to correct your statements, simply do so in a new comment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)