User talk:Unschool/Archive 4

Eszett tidbits

Hi Unschool, here are some factoids about the usage of eszett in German that may be relevant in future discussions. The main argument for using eszett here seems to be that replacing it with 'ss' is "incorrect." Leaving aside for a moment the question of correctness in English, there are a number of circumstances in which it's acceptable to do this even in German. Maybe you already know all this, but here are the cases I've found:

1. When writing in all caps.[1]
2. By writing long-s short-s, which is one of the historical progenitors of eszett, and still seems to be regarded as an interchangeable variant. (see Image:WaldstraßePirna.JPG)
3. In Switzerland. Yes, Swiss newspapers write the names of German people and places, in German, in just the same way that English-language ones do. (find Strauss, Wilhelmstrasse)
4. If using a typewriter or printing apparatus that doesn't have eszett.

I think that number 3 is especially important. It means that even in the German language, usage of eszett is not inseverably tied to the way a name is spelled in its home country. Instead, each German standard is allowed to follow its own style, even when writing names that originally come from somewhere else. So if it's not inaccurate for the Swiss to write "Strauss" and "Wilhelmstrasse," surely English it's unreasonable to claim that it's inaccurate for English to do so. Just another angle on the problem since there doesn't seem to be much useful communication or understanding with the current approaches. --Reuben (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, I was aware of #1 and #3. But allow me to make a few comments.

• Regarding #1: Yes, to be sure this makes it clear that it's not very difficult to recognize "ss" as a substitute—albeit an imperfect one— for "ß". But if you take comfort in this, your solace will be short lived. The uppercase "ß" may be on the way soon.
• Regarding #2:. Well, I'm sure that there's some of that out there, but it may just be a stylized sort of thing. Have you ever seen it when somebody (pompously, in my opinion) writes English is all Roman Capitals, excluding the use of the letters that English (and other languages) have added to Latin? Like writing "IVPITER", for the largest of the planets. Yeah, I've seen that occasionally, but it doesn't make it standard English practice.
• Regarding #3: I too for a long time considered the Swiss abolition of ß to be a significant argument here. But upon further reflection, I'm not so sure. Let's hypothesize that en.wiki is split into two volumes: us.wiki and uk.wiki (actually, I'm guessing that uk.wiki is already taken by the good folks in Kiev, but I meant to assume a British wiki). Assuming that this divide took place, I think it's pretty clear that Americans and Brits would recognize—despite the different spelling conventions—each other's meaning. But that doesn't mean that it would be acceptable to employ those other spelling conventions in each wiki. An American would have the right to insist upon "color" and not "colour", in us.wiki; i.e., the fact that Brits use one spelling that I recognize does not make it valid on us.wiki. So the fact that the Swiss, those lovable, agreeable people, have seen fit to abolish the ß should not be expected to diminish the fervor of other Gemanophones in insisting on the use of ß. (Of course, this analogy in no way diminishes the case for "Strauss" on en.wiki, because this is the English wiki, not a German wiki of any kind.)

I do agree with your observation that there isn't a whole lot of reason for optimism on this front. The unabashed anger shown by at least one editor is truly disheartening. And I understand how they feel, I think. As I understand them, they truly believe that we Strauss-promoters are ignorant. And if you believed that someone who had just gotten their way in a dispute with you was ignorant of the facts of the argument, you'd probably be pretty frustrated as well, wouldn't you? I know I would. But I just wish those who are upset could see into our minds, and realize that we truly do understand their point, we truly do understand that "Strauß" is the "correct" spelling, as they insist, but that that "correctness" is not the standard that we are applying here.

I am happy to see that there has been no gloating by anyone on our side of this dispute. I know that I felt no sense of victory. In fact, I felt really strange when it was moved. I've been so annoyed by seeing Strauß the past two years, but when it was gone, I got that feeling you get when you go up a set of stairs in the dark and you lose count and when you come to the top you're expecting another step and your foot just sort of swings up there and you almost fall forward—do you know what I'm talking about? You know, you miss something wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. I mean, for two years I've been reading his name as "Straub", and now it's finally "Strauss". I'm finally saying it correctly, but if I was asked to say his name without looking at the article, I would have pronounced the "B". Isn't that weird? Unschool (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Unschool, thanks for your thoughts. I know you've put a lot more time and consideration into this (and a host of other readability issues) than I have, so it's always good to hear your conclusions and especially your reasons. I think I understand what you mean about the anti-climax. When you add something really great, you can look at it again and again and have a sense of accomplishment. But when you go through a lot of work to remove something, even though the result is correct, there's no tangible product to look at. Just the absence of something that had been out of place.

I'm not sure I expressed my point well regarding the usage in Switzerland. It's really that the use of ß in German follows the writer's national style, not that of the subject of the article. Surely English should be allowed at least as much freedom to follow its own usage as the different standards of German have. If there's one thing I'd like to see better expressed in this debate, it's what exactly the proponents of using ß mean by "correct" and "accurate." Do they regard it as incorrect and inaccurate when Swiss German speakers write Vossstrasse or Franz Josef Strauss? If it's condescending to the reader to prefer ss in English, is it also condescending to the Swiss reader? It's an interesting and somewhat parallel example that lacks some of the emotional baggage.

Actually, though, I think that's the center of it. The argument for using ß is tangled up in a response to xenophobia and linguistic chauvinism. Since xenophobia and linguistic chauvinism on the part of English speakers are very real (I've certainly witnessed enough examples myself to make me cringe remembering them), I can't say that's unreasonable. But it makes our discussions into a dialogue of the deaf, since it's very hard to convince someone that you are imposing your own spelling conventions on their names out of something other than ignorance and arrogance. Oh well. I should worry about cleaning up neglected articles instead. It doesn't give the top-of-the-stairs feeling since there's something nice to look at in the end. --Reuben (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying. You know, since there can't be a "Swiss wikipedia", we'll never know. But if Wikipedias were based upon nation-states instead of languages, it would be fascinating to see what the attitudes would be on all sides. Would the Swiss (who did use ß in the past) write "Strauss" or "Struaß"? And if they chose Strauss, would the advocates of using ß deride them for incorrect spelling? I honestly don't know. I mean, the insistence that "Strauss" is a misspelling is based upon a sincere belief, but one that (in my opinion) is founded in a technicality of WP:UE, that I believe misconstrues the whole purpose of WP:UE.

The most important thing in these debates is to recognize that this linguistic chauvinism is almost certainly not rooted in any type of nationalistic antipathy. Oh, there definately does exist ethnic and other types of prejudice in the world—you've correctly noted that. But in these recent debates on StrauB, I think that the parties involved not only want it their way, but that they all sincerely believe that they have reason and logic on their side. And if I think that my opponent is not trying to screw with my head, that he really, really believes what he is saying, then I find that that gives me all the patience I need to keep trying to work with him.

Hey, I appreciate your participation. See you around. Unschool (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Subpage

I think that the discussion of the Eszett in that article should be archived and listed as a discussion on the use of the Eszett. That way, a user looking at the talk page isn't seeing "Archive 1" and missing the debate. Also that way, it can be linked to for reference. I would call it Talk:Franz Josef Strauss/Eszett and list it as such. For more centralized discussion, I would start a WikiProject on transliteration or diacritics or something like that. You *should* ask around. Personally, I would ask P. M. Anderson as he seems to have a better grip and more involvement in this topic than I do at this time. Charles 16:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Region (disambiguation)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Region (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment for you on AfD

your response is appreciated

--NBahn (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A technical question

At one point you stated that I had fewer than one hundred non-minor edits to my credit. Ever since then, I've been trying to figure out how exactly you located that information; I haven't been able to locate it and I am wondering if I may trouble you (if it isn't inconvenient for you, that is) for how you located that information. I must admit that I'm quite curious.

--NBahn (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Many editors who understand such things (this excludes me) have designed "edit counters". They don't all work the same way or do the same thing, and sometimes you'll get used to one, use it for months, and it'll disappear for some reason. The one I use can be found here, but a list of several is located on this page. Enjoy! Unschool (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Recombinant text

• If you believe the author of the article is the same Michael Allan who all the references point to, then by all means bring it up. I'm not sure if WP:OR is a valid argument since his work seems to have been published, but you can definitely raise WP:COI issues. JuJube (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Your reasoning seems perfectly acceptable to bring the article to AfD. You might want to do a quickie search on Google (including Books and Scholar) to see if there are any reliable third-party sources on the subject first before actually nominating the article. If, in a good faith attempt (which on Google, for the sake of AfD, checking the two additional searches I mentioned along with a regular Google search, would be a search of 5-10 minutes maximum) you can't find anything, then be bold and go ahead and nominate the article. LaMenta3 (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think this article should be brought to AfD. Many references are self-published and the others don't seem to refer to this 'recombinant text' idea. By the way, putting messages on multiple users' talk pages to demonstrate the same idea is often frowned upon - see WP:CANVASS.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• The author says himself that the article is original research. In my experience, this article's only hope is to be merged into another article such as collaborative editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• The article clearly breaches WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. It is dressed up WP:OR and possibly WP:SOAP. The author is pushing his original ideas, contributing his own work, and citing his own website. It fails WP:COS as not published in a reputable or peer-reviewed academic source. The term is use, but I question whether Allan invented it as he claims. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Saw your note on User talk:EEMIV. In addition to WP:CANVASS, please see also Wikipedia:Consensus#"Asking the other parent". What's worse: You did not post to the article talk page or notify User:Michael Allan, who is being pretty much fully straightforward about his own COI, which is considerably better (and deserves corresponding consideration) than when someone is hiding their COI. As to the proposed deletion: The issue seems to already have come up.[2] On the grounds that neither COI (particularly a well-handled) nor OR (which it isn't, since most of it has indeed been published) are part of Wikipedia:Deletion policy, I would be strongly opposed to deletion. If you feel there are particular issues with the article that need to be addressed, do it at the article talk page. If you think COI or OR pose a problem on the article (they are not by and of themselves problems in each and every case) that cannot be resolved at the article talk page, seek out the proper venues, like e.g. WP:COI/N or seek input through an WP:RfC. User:Dorftrottel 12:39, January 12, 2008

Were it not for WP:AGF, I would probably be rather miffed at what to me appears to be an arrogant and critical tone on your part. I do not feel that I have in any way violated WP:CANVASS. I have been wholly transparent in both my intent and my methods. I did not engage in votestacking: Not only were my contacts selected at random, I did not even solicit a course of action, because I was (and remain) genuinely uncertain about policies and procedures and how they may relate to this article. All I was doing was seeking an understanding of processes which I made clear I do not understand well, and you come here and (as I see it) impugn both my methods and motivation. As to your suggestion that I post concerns on the talk page, I consider such a suggestion almost daft. I was seeking a random selection of editors to guide me; do you honestly think that that would be obtained on that article's talk page? Just as or even more importantly, would I be likely on such a page as that to acquire more than one or two opinions in a month's time? As to the suggestion that I notify the editor in question, you yourself point out that he has laid out his case openly and honestly. We can see his position clearly. I have no quarrel with his intent. But the most well-intended person can sometimes be wrong. Had I gotten to the point where I would have nominated the article for deletion, I assume that he would be notified or I guess he would see that the article was nominated and he would have a chance to respond. But at this exploratory stage, with no agenda of my own but to learn about policy, there was little if anything to gain in a conversation with the author of the article. If you want to argue that it would be a courtesy to inform him, then you may have a point. On the other hand, I was well-prepared for the possibility that other editors would tell me that there was no problem with the article, and thus the point would be moot. And those other pages you suggested I go to? I've not seen them before, and telling me that I should seek out "proper venues" smacks of the preoperational child's assumption that what he knows everyone else knows. Okay, so those are great places to go and get input. But just what the hell do you think I was trying to do? So sorry that I didn't do it "properly".

I have absolutely no feelings one way or another about this article. Yes, I see that another editor has nominated the article for deletion. I shall not participate in that discussion, and probably won't even look at it. Your post here has left me with a bad taste in my mouth like I have never before felt in working on this encyclopedia. I've never gotten my head bitten off for asking a question before, and I just don't know what to think about this. Unschool (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Upon reading my post, it is clear that, despite my claim at its opening, I have not assumed good faith. I apologize for this; doubly so if in fact I have misunderstood your intent. However, I can't help but to still feel as violated now as I did when I first read your post. Unschool (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not going to respond to the noise about AGF etcpp. If you're not prepared to handle criticism of your actions, do not perform them. I'll just assume that the statement that you feel "violated" by my post constitutes a momentary lapse of better judgment on your part. As to your claimed lack of familiarity with best practice, please remember that Ignorantia juris non excusat. Finally, if you're truly interested, as you say, in "seeking a random selection of editors to guide [you]", there's a load of proper venues to ask for community input. See WP:3, WP:EA or WP:RFC just for starters. The mere fact that you yourself chose the editors you notified means that those contacts were not selected at random (assuming you didn't use some computer-assisted randomisation process to select them). User:Dorftrottel 14:42, January 12, 2008

Not random? I chose this this deletion archive out of three that were located at "Old Discussions". Since I did not look at any of the three before I made my choice, I consider it to have been a random choice. When I opened up the archive, I started at the top, and clicked on every editor until I had clicked on about 30 or so. I think I went through about three AfD discussions. As random as computerization? Technically, no, but since I didn't even read their posts, and since I clicked on them straight on down the list (which you can verify that by comparing my contributions page and the aforementioned archive), I think most reasonable people would regard that as random.

Am I being hypersensative? Undoubtedly. I normally engage in discussions of great intensity with great calmness. I guess the difference is that, when I am discussing an issue on which it is known that feelings are intense, one expects occasional invective. But here—I was just asking questions, and it caught me off guard to get my head bit off, merely for asking them in the wrong way. Yeah, I shouldn't have allowed it to upset me so much. But you didn't have to be such an ass, either. A lot of people could have delivered the same message in a different manner. I think I would have allowed some credit for intent. And while ignorance of the law does not constitute a defense, in a great many cases intent mitigates the consequences for one's trespasses, particularly where the harm is minimal. Or do you think that my ostensible faux pas will bring the House of Wikipedia down upon us all? Unschool (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as too harsh, but imo part of it is indeed due to some oversensitivity on your part. Can we drop the issue now? User:Dorftrottel 15:40, January 12, 2008

Absolutely.Unschool (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Btw, regarding your question "Have two sockpuppets ever had such different personalities?"[3]: See User:Dorftrottel/disclosure and #Anakin_Skywalker... User:Dorftrottel 16:29, January 12, 2008

Well, Praise the Lord and Pass the Haloperidol!  :-) I sure didn't see that one coming. (My head should stop shaking momentarily.) Unschool (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeaj, I guess this is just not my wikiday. And the tendency is, if I get off on the wrong foot, everything that follows will be a relative disaster. User:Dorftrottel 18:28, January 12, 2008

• When I initially looked at the article, I thought it was blatant original research. Most of the sources listed have been published through notable secondary channels, which would mean that OR doesn't apply. However, it is very likely a conflict of interest and possibly soap-boxing as well. Articles generally should be written by lay-people (i.e. who have little or nothing to do with the subject) in order to be considered non-COI. Mr Senseless (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - In this case, it appears to be a neologism, which is definitely a candidate for wiktionary. And as the author seems to want to put it into wider use, it may be a good idea to leave a note on either the talk page of the article or, if they have a user name, on their user talk page and talk about conflict of interest. Hope that helps! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I put in my opinion on the AfD. --Merovingian (T, C) 22:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Continental United States

Would you mind taking a look at the current version of the Continental United States article to see if it is, to your knowledge, factually accurate? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to put an email address out publicly, but I'll do this. If you go to my weblog, you'll find on the sidebar a comment address. We can use that at least to begin with.

I'm very interested in making the article better, and look forward to your comments. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I share your apprehension. I went and typed in my email address and a brief comment, and was prepared to hit "submit", but the button said "Publish". If I hit that, will my email be posted somewhere on your site, or will only you have it? Unschool (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't use the "comment" feature, instead look down the right-hand sidebar until you see a box that says "write me" (it's about 15 or 16 PgDns, depending on the size of your browser display). In that box is a graphic which spells out an address. Type that address into a blank e-mail and away you go. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, two other possibilities. (1) We can use JTIR's suggestion below. (2) I've opened an old e-mail address that I had closed down. If you write me there, I'll respond with another address, and then close down the other one. Send to: unfutz@yahoogroups.com (this is *not* a publicly accessible group, I used it as a maildrop for the weblog until I found a better method). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Another way would be to create a subpage somewhere you both agree on. Editors who are making major changes to an article sometimes put the drafts in a sandbox under their user page -- e.g. User:Unschool/Sandbox/Continental United States. --Jtir (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You could also paste an annotated version of the article into Wikipedia:Sandbox and report the version as an external link. For example: Here are my comments. This method has the disadvantage that you will likely get edit conflicts, although they can be ignored in the sandbox. --Jtir (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Argghhhh. Yeah, I know, it was my idea. But it's such a hassle. I think I'll find a way to just do things on the talk page for CUS. Besides, that assures "transparency". I've never engaged in any covert conversations with any Wikipedians before, and I don't want to be accused of that now. Sorry for all the trouble. Unschool (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: User_talk:Cvieg Nice work

Thanks for the Barnstar! I am honored. I appreciate your comments and will take them to heart.--Cvieg (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Camp Daniel Boone

A tag has been placed on Camp Daniel Boone requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WebHamster 06:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

FPC Again

Hi, Sorry to bother you once more, but since you took the time to help me choose a candidate for FPC from my tortoise pictures, I would like to request you to please vote for the picture here. Thanks again for your help.

Regards, Muhammad(talk) 17:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Theo van Gogh (film director)

There's absolutely no need to be so rude - Alison ^❤ 04:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are correct. The tag was placed by someone who was helping, and I attacked them. At the time I didn't see it really as rude; I was just making a point, albeit in a flippant manner. Neandertal that I am, I failed to consider that someone could take it personally. I shall go to the page and make amends. Thank you for the ear twist. Unschool (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. I had assumed you were an etiquette monitor; I hadn't thought that it was actually your toes upon which I had trod. Again, I repeat my apologies, only doubly so. Unschool (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Unfortunately, I have to be somewhat reticent as to why the article was semi'd. It is actually the target of a banned editor (indeed, about as banned as they get) so there's no room for leniency on it. Thanks again - Alison ^❤ 06:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Homeschooling

I've responded to the "Userbox" discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Homeschooling. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 16:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Politicians list

I honestly don't know how I managed to screw up the coding on that. I usually haven't had problems with similar tables in the past. Whatever. I'll let it be from now on. --Kevin W. 07:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, no, it's not a matter of screwing up the coding. It's because the list is sortable, and each cell is tied to the cells on its immediate right and left, so if a single cell is tied to two cells on its left, when the two cells on the left get separated upon sorting, it's impossible for the double-linked cell to land in two places at once. It's not that you made an error, it's that you attempted to do something impossible. No biggie, man. Unschool (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

English usage

OK, I'll stick around. PS- I've given up on the Ice Hockey articles though (it just wasn't fun anymore) & I'm a big hockey fan too. It's just that sometimes the arrogance of some of these foreign symbol pushers, burns me up inside. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

They are arrogant, 'tis true. But in their feelings on these issues, they are also as sincere as are we. And as aggrivating as their arrogance is to us, I imagine that what they (wrongly) perceive as our ignorance burns them up just as much. So enjoy that.  :-) Unschool (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Great point. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Home Sweet Home

Yeah, I should have saved the improvements before doing the redirecting, but I was doing three or four things at once related to that dab and wasn't thinking much about the order in which I did them. Cheers--ShelfSkewed Talk 05:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeschooling Newsletter

	The Homeschooling WikiProject News
Issue One • Early March 2008 • About the Newsletter
News Recent Project News A New WikiProject Homeschooling member, Basketball110 has been hired by Diligent Terrier (Project Founder and Newsletter Writer) as the official newsletter deliverer. When you get a chance, stop by his talk page and thank him for joining and volunteering at the project! This newsletter is part of the Newsroom project, which has been created to update our members on the latest news at the project and on homeschooling. Project member count reaches 18 19 20 21 :) members! Keep inviting all your WikiFriends using our invitation templates. Remember to thank users Burner0718 and RC-0722 for helping to recruit users for this WikiProject. Wikipedia user Sherurcij, currently not a member, has asked for support from our members at other Wikimedia projects such as WikiSource and Wikimedia Commons. This message can be found at the project's talk page. Remember: The project is now accessible from new shortcuts, WP:HOME and WP:WPHS. Birthdays: Wish RC-0722 a happy (late) birthday. Collaboration of the Month Nominations are currently open for WikiProject Homeschooling's Collaboration of the month. You can nominate and vote here. A Wikipedia Ad for the project will be created by User:Miranda. This user would like to know exactly what the ad should say. Suggestions should be left at Diligent Terrier's talk page. Recent Homeschooling News Homeschooling has been banned in California by recent court ruling on March 6, 2008. As homeschool families protest, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has asked for the ruling to be overturned.
Archives • Newsroom
Newsletter written by DiligentTerrier and friends. Newsletter delivered by Basketball110

	The Homeschooling WikiProject News
Issue Two • Late March 2008 • About the Newsletter
News Recent Project News WikiProject merger: Diligent Terrier has proposed that WikiProject Alternative Education be merged into this WikiProject. Although it is currently inactive, the merger may give the projects a chance to grow stronger. You can read the proposal at their talk page. Collaboration of the Month nominations are currently open for WikiProject Homeschooling's Collaboration of the month. It is mandatory, well not mandatory, but highly encouraged that you, as a member, nominate and/or vote for the Collaboration of the month. A Wikipedia Ad for the project has been created by User:Miranda. You can view it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Homeschooling/Ad. Please include the ad in your userpage to show your support for the project. The Userbox Discussion for the selection of our official and standard userbox has been reopened now that we have more members. The discussion was originally opened by Unschool last month, but was put on hold until our group had more users. Assistant Coordinators Diligent Terrier has nominated two users to be assistant coordinators, User:Burner0718 and User:RC-0722 Project member count has reached 21 members! Several users joined following the publication of the previous newsletter. Remember: The project is now accessible from new shortcuts, WP:HOME and WP:WPHS. Birthdays: Wish RC-0722 a happy (late) birthday. Wikisource collaboration has been proposed by Sherurcij, an administrator on Wikisource. He is seeking help putting the complete texts of Author:Charlotte Mason online. Recent Homeschooling News The "homeschooling convention season" (March - August) has started. . Sorry — couldn't think of a better story. Homeschooling has been banned in California by recent court ruling on March 6, 2008. As homeschool families protest, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has asked for the ruling to be overturned.
Archives • Newsroom
Newsletter written by DiligentTerrier and friends. Newsletter delivered by Basketball110

The Olympics... ho-hum...

Well those future Olympics sites are full of speculation and no citations. But the pages will eventually be created. There needs to be a cap. Because I could make a page saying Kansas City wants to host the 2100 Summer Olympics, and it'll stay around, and other people will add other cities even for that way out date. last I checked 2024 was the furthest. Bids usually only start 9 years ahead of the games. (awarded 7 years in advanced.) I don't know what to do. Pages like the Superbowl, and NCAA basketball tournaments don't go too far into the future. Even with cities still bidding. I wish we could be more like that. cheers. And I like your proposal page, even if this response is very delayed.20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Moonraker0022 (talk)

The 'glockner

I appreciate the message you left on my talk page - thank you. Although I still believe that my actions will not skew the result appreciably, I can understand why you think it might. Either way, I hope the best decision is made for the page title and the readers! Best, Knepflerle (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Homeschooling

Why are you leaving? Have you seen everything we've done to the homeschooling article lately, or our Collaboration of the month nominations? - DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 15:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you leaving or not? May i suggest that if you are leaving that project, you completely remove your name, not just strike it out. Thanks. Five Years 16:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're not leaving, we could sure use your help with the Collaboration of the Month. I should be getting out the newsletter with that info hopefully tonight. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 00:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Homeschooling Early April 2008 Newsletter

	The Homeschooling WikiProject News
Issue Three • Early April 2008 • About the Newsletter
News Recent Project News Collaboration of the Month nominations are currently open for WikiProject Homeschooling's Collaboration of the month. So far there have been two nominations. You can nominate and vote at April's Collaboration page (link). The March 2008 Collaboration of the Month was a real success! You can view the before and afters at the project page. The following users contributed: Zginder, Wrad, E104421, Diligent Terrier. Stop by their talk page and give them a smile. Peer Review: The homeschooling article is currently under peer review. Constructive criticism is welcome at the peer review page (link). Project member count reaches 23 members! Keep inviting all your WikiFriends using our invitation templates. A Homeschooling Portal may be created by User:WBOSITG. However, this user will soon be on a WikiBreak, so don't expect it anytime soon. Remember: The project is accessible from the shortcuts, WP:HOME and WP:WPHS. Note: User:Twenty Years has changed his name to "Five Years" A Wikipedia Ad for the project has been created. You can view it at the project page.
Archives • Newsroom
Newsletter written by DiligentTerrier (and friends). Newsletter delivered by DiligentTerrier (and friends)

An RfC you might be interested in

Hello. You were nice enough to make some supportive remarks on my talk page concerning excessive tagging on Wikipedia, so I wanted to let you know that an RfC has been filed on me. Please feel free to drop by and comment, if you're interested, one way or the other. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away for a while. I've gone ahead and made a statement. Good luck to you, and thank you for thinking of asking me for my comment! Unschool (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar from anon vandal

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Because I, an anony, am impressed by your ability to quickly catch my own vandalisms, I award you this shiny anti-vandalism star. Just think, now that I've given it to you, I can't take it away. Congrats. 64.194.176.5 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC) | Talk 20:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this from my user page (where it had been placed by the anon), because I think that there's a clear ethical issue with accepting awards in this manner. Kind of like the sheriff taking a bribe from the guy whom he's caught. But rather than delete it, I'll leave it here; for better or worse, it is a part of the historical record. Unschool (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't be shamed buddy, it's yours. The Sheriff analogy is weak, b/c the sheriff would (or wouldn't) take the bribe in secret. Think of this more as the criminal campaigns for the sheriff b/c he's a good sheriff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.194.176.5 (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a weak analogy, but good analogies emerge from strong convictions. My feelings about this were more wishy-washy than my anaolgy. Unschool (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Adoption "Program"

Hello there. Thanks a lot for your comments. This program was originally constructed by Hersfold, however I did make some changes as to how I do this, how I "run it", although, this is not cabalish whatsoever. Regarding the number of adoptees, there's no way I could take on another case, per this, this, this, and this (shudders). I have a high edit count, yes, but edit count isn't something that I look upon anymore. It's about the quality of our edits, and not the quantity of them. I also take a role when I can in anti-vandalism, however recently have done no reverting other than on my watchlist. I'm more into the discussing of vandalism etc. Have a listen to Episode 9, Part 3 and 4, I gave my thoughts there. And about RyRy, it was an admin who requested me adopt him. No-one else really wanted to, to be honest. There was a discussion on IRC about it, and in the admin channel. But what happens on IRC stays on IRC ;) Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil edits

Hi Unschooler,

Please try to be more civil, as this edit borders on attacking a fellow editor (myself, in this situation). Cheers! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A gift for you: Recommended reading for Dilligent Terrier. I know you work hard on this project, dude, and I'll give you your props for that. But if something "borders" on incivility, perhaps you could just thicken your hide a little and let it pass.

You know, there is such a thing as an actual, obvious attack, as opposed to mildly offensive behaviour. To my way of thinking, there's a difference between Woman A being raped at gunpoint and Woman B having a construction worker whistle at her as she walks by. But in today's world there are an increasing number of people who think that each of those last two happenings are equal in seriousness. While I think that Woman B has the right to be offended (if that is how she takes the wolfwhistle), I also think that the police and courts have more important things to worry about. If there's any chance that Woman A was raped because a police officer was spending his time investigating Woman B's complaint, then I'm very, very unhappy. My point? Well, if you need me to spell it out any more for you, then I've just been wasting my time.

Oh, one more thing. You might want to read Matthew 7:3. Unschool (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What I said was that what you did was uncivil - but it bordered on being a personal attack. You responded saying that it "borders" on incivility, including with some other article that I don't have time to read, as well as a story and a bible verse that were both irrelevant. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Some points:

• Okay, I didn't get your exact quote correct. And while I agree with you that there is clearly a difference in what you said and the way I quoted it back, the difference is one of degree, not of logic. Yet you ignore the point I make, taking refuge in a technicality.
• Secondly, you say that I responded with an "irrelevant" story. I will presume that you actually thought that that was a story, and now gently inform you that that was what is called an analogy. It was not intended to relate an actual occurence; it is a logical device used to illustrate a point that might otherwise be opaque to the listener. As such, it was not irrelevant at all, it was making a salient point about the nature of your complaint. If this is still, in any way, unclear to you, please let me know and I will happily explain in greater detail.
• Thirdly, you disregarded my Bible verse as irrelevant. My guess, if you sincerely fail to recognize the relevance, is that you are unfamiliar with this guideline. There are many policies and guidelines with which I am unfamiliar, so I can understand if you may have missed one. This one actually came from Jimbo, though before you began editing seriously under your current username, so I'm not sure if you were around when it was the subject of much discussion. But never fear, because, unlike some other people, I don't allow the fact that there are lawyers out there telling me that I should take offense at every little thing to actually allow me to feel offended. Instead, I try to assume good faith, recognizing that, without the ability to hear a person's tone of voice or read their facial expressions, that it is very easy to mistake someone else's comment for an "attack". That is why I wait until someone calls me something like a "G*****n M*****f*****", or tell me that my "head is obviously shoved up my a**" before I presume that the other person's intent was to offend. Those are more obviously personal attacks than someone questioning the wisdom of my edits.

DT, first of all, I had no idea who made those edits to John Holt. So, by definition, the attacks were not personal, because a personal attack is made against an individual. Of course, admitedly, you would have to take my word that I didn't go back in the edit history and find out who it was, but I'm just telling you, I didn't (and still haven't—I'm assuming that you're an honest puppy and telling me the truth, that this came across to you as a personal attack).

More importantly, and I say this both with all sincereness, yet with total forgiveness, I found your last edit to be highly insulting. I provided you with a good faith response to a comment that you placed on my talk page, but your reply was, essentially, "I don't have time to read what you put out there. Your comments are irrelevant." That may not be how you intended it, but it came across that way to me. And to me, one who values honest discussion more than almost anything, that was the ultimate in uncivil behaviour. You come in my house, level some charges against me, and then announce that what I have to say in reply is irrelevant. Please don't start a conversation and then just turn your back on the person who decides to reply. I don't think that that's too much to ask. Unschool (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment: "So, by definition, the attacks were not personal, because a personal attack is made against an individual" My reply: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" [4] Also, I fail to how your talk page is your "house" You do not own your talk page, per this guideline.Now, I would highly suggest we drop this discussion and continue improving/writing the encyclopedia. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 23:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy right now, and I don't have the time to reply now, but I don't see this discussion going anywhere, so I don't think it's necessary that I defend myself when Unschool was really the user with questionable edits. Also, why were you talking about the userbox policy? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 00:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this discussion going anywhere. Well of course not. Because you keep ignoring my points. And the userboxes were directly tied to the Biblical verse. You, of course, called the verse "irrelevant", yet your post this evening shows that you clearly did not understand what the verse was referring to. So if you didn't understand it, why did you deem it irrelevant? When someone makes a point that I don't see as being relevant, I ask them about it. I discuss the matter with them, to try to work out our differences. You've shown no such inclination. You come onto my talk page, accuse me of behaviour that in your opinion is improper, and when I try to explain my point of view, you turn around and walk away. Wikipedia is built on consensus. Consensus does not occur when one side feels it can dictate to another and not listen in return. Sure, it's okay to ignore someone who is cursing at you or behaving in a way that would generally get them hauled away by security. But I've been acting in good faith, and have just been looking for a little good faith in return. Unschool (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not move this discussion to my talk page. Thank you. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appeared that you hadn't noticed it here. Unschool (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And you continue to ignore my comments, walking away from a discussion that you started. Unschool (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see where you explained your point of view. Maybe I'm missing something. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You replied to none of this:

Some points:

• Okay, I didn't get your exact quote correct. And while I agree with you that there is clearly a difference in what you said and the way I quoted it back, the difference is one of degree, not of logic. Yet you ignore the point I make, taking refuge in a technicality.
• Secondly, you say that I responded with an "irrelevant" story. I will presume that you actually thought that that was a story, and now gently inform you that that was what is called an analogy. It was not intended to relate an actual occurence; it is a logical device used to illustrate a point that might otherwise be opaque to the listener. As such, it was not irrelevant at all, it was making a salient point about the nature of your complaint. If this is still, in any way, unclear to you, please let me know and I will happily explain in greater detail.
• Thirdly, you disregarded my Bible verse as irrelevant. My guess, if you sincerely fail to recognize the relevance, is that you are unfamiliar with this guideline. There are many policies and guidelines with which I am unfamiliar, so I can understand if you may have missed one. This one actually came from Jimbo, though before you began editing seriously under your current username, so I'm not sure if you were around when it was the subject of much discussion. But never fear, because, unlike some other people, I don't allow the fact that there are lawyers out there telling me that I should take offense at every little thing to actually allow me to feel offended. Instead, I try to assume good faith, recognizing that, without the ability to hear a person's tone of voice or read their facial expressions, that it is very easy to mistake someone else's comment for an "attack". That is why I wait until someone calls me something like a "G*****n M*****f*****", or tell me that my "head is obviously shoved up my a**" before I presume that the other person's intent was to offend. Those are more obviously personal attacks than someone questioning the wisdom of my edits.

DT, first of all, I had no idea who made those edits to John Holt. So, by definition, the attacks were not personal, because a personal attack is made against an individual. Of course, admitedly, you would have to take my word that I didn't go back in the edit history and find out who it was, but I'm just telling you, I didn't (and still haven't—I'm assuming that you're an honest puppy and telling me the truth, that this came across to you as a personal attack).

More importantly, and I say this both with all sincereness, yet with total forgiveness, I found your last edit to be highly insulting. I provided you with a good faith response to a comment that you placed on my talk page, but your reply was, essentially, "I don't have time to read what you put out there. Your comments are irrelevant." That may not be how you intended it, but it came across that way to me. And to me, one who values honest discussion more than almost anything, that was the ultimate in uncivil behaviour. You come in my house, level some charges against me, and then announce that what I have to say in reply is irrelevant. Please don't start a conversation and then just turn your back on the person who decides to reply. I don't think that that's too much to ask. Unschool (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

other than to say "I'm a bit busy right now, and I don't have the time to reply now, but I don't see this discussion going anywhere"

I took it as a given that you were an intelligent person, worthy of an intelligent reply, and you said "I don't have the time". Which I actually can respect, for a time. Now if you don't understand my reply, then say so. I'd be happy to explain anything that is unclear. Unschool (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your criticism in your reply criticized my previous reply, not my original post. What is it exactly that you would like me to comment on? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your criticism in your reply criticized my previous reply, not my original post. Understood; fair enough.

So what is my point? First of all, and this is strictly my opinion, my comments in those edit summaries did not constitute anything resembling a personal attack. But I accept the fact that, in your eyes, it approached that level. My petition to you was to reconsider your views on this. The analogy was making the point that there exists an honest difference of opinion between various persons as to what constitutes certain offenses. The construction workers who whistle at a woman who walk by have committed a sexual offense against that woman, at least in some persons' eyes. The man who rapes a woman at gunpoint has committed a sexual offense against a woman, I assume in everyone's eyes. So the question is, do the two women who have been assaulted (one by a whistle, the other by a gun-bearing rapist) have equally serious grievances to file? I do in fact know people who think that both of these offenses are equally bad, because "an assault is an assault". My guess would be, given what you took offense to, that you are such a person yourself. And my point was simply this: You are a busy, active, productive editor. Do you really think that taking the time to be offended by something as mild as my edit summary is worth your time, my time, an RfC's time? I think it would be fascinating to see what others would say about my supposed offenses, and would have no problem getting the community's input on the matter—and, who knows, your feelings might be vindicated—but I suspect that you would be told what I told you in my initial response: Grow a slightly thicker skin. I believe that this was an instance where most people would say, "Are you serious about this offending you?" At the very worst, I suppose I can construe a meaning behind those edit summaries that could have had an offending intent behind them, but it's much easier to see them as simply an over-enthusiastic explanation of what the editor was doing. I still shake my head when I think that this could have bothered you enough to leave a message on my talk page. If you just had a slightly thicker skin, you could see that this was at worst an ambiguous situation, and certainly not worth the bother.

Oh, and the bible verse was pointing out that you cite me for mild offensiveness, when you are in violation of Jimbo's clear desire that we not engage in the offensive practice of using userboxes to proclaim any affiliations (particularly religious and political) that might be considered divisive. Now in point of fact, I do not personally find such boxes offensive (indeed, I find they help in discussions) but if I was as easily offended as you apparently are, I would have thrown that in your face, since you have both kinds of "offensive" boxes on your page, as do thousands of other Wikipedians. What has happened is that the practice of affiliation-indicating userboxes has become acceptable by being practiced universally. It seems that there weren't really that many people who found them offenses—just a few ninnies. And I think you'd find a similar number of people finding my comments offensive. I mean, you can find someone to be offended by anything, just as you can always find someone who believes anything. As for myself, I'm working to make sure that I'm lumped in with the reasonable crowd. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oi vei, I thought this discussion was over! Why don't we drop the stick and move on. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RC, for the life of me I don't understand why you feel compelled to interject in here. The only thing that I could see resulting from your previous uninvited interjection was to provide a false sense of closure to a matter that you clearly did not involve you, and it took five days to get DT to return to the discussion. Is it too much to ask that I can have this discussion with DT without you piping in with your attempts to blow the final whistle? You know, sometimes there is actually a point to discussing differences of opinion; without reaching some sense of resolution the chance of the same issue coming up approaches inevitibility. I accept as sincere your attempts at—well, at whatever it is that you are attempting. But it has taken me a great deal of time, energy, and commitment to get DT to discuss my concerns, and I do not desire any additional distractions from the subject. Unschool (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get off subject here, but are you hinting that a Christian userbox is inappropriate, Unschool? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I will give you the respect of an answer, though I do believe that it is getting off the main subject. First of all, I never breathed a word about Christianity. I pointed out two things:

• that Jimbo has expressed concern that userboxes of a certain type on your userpage are "bad for the project". It's not a mandate from him (I don't think he really can mandate much anymore, if I understand correctly how things have evolved here), but it is an expression of concern from the project's founder that such userboxes may provide the appearance of POV, which is undesirable.
• that your user page included examples of two of the categories of userboxes regarding which he expressed concern.

I recognize that your decision to include such userpages does not constitute a violation of policy; I was pointing out how hypersensitive some people can be, and I explicitly stated: "I do not personally find such boxes offensive". Given that I made an explicit statement that I do not object to these boxes, I have to wonder if you're actually reading my posts and making a sincere attempt to understand my point of view, or, if once again you are avoiding my points by seeking refuge in technical objections. I never claimed that I believe a Christian userbox is inappropriate, I state again for the record that I don't think a Christian userbox is inappropriate, and I ask you now to do me the courtesy of reading my posts and responding to the points that I have made, not the ones which you imagine that I made. Unschool (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hesky tesky shatzkabini putchi on the beatnica with knifis. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

reply

Well, for starters I think DT's a guy. You misunderstood my comment. I said that per your statement, "because a personal attack is made against an individual" Hope that helps! RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand. You were not supporting his claim that I made a personal attack, but rather, you were pointing out that I had an erroneous understanding of guidelines. Okay, that I get; you were right. Thank you for clarifying.Unschool (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Moving RC's comments to someplace where they do not disrupt the flow of the discussion to which she was not invited" FYI, I'm a guy. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 22:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to remember that, since proper gender identification appears to be very important to you. Unschool (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 22:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering ... where did you get the idea that we were both female? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard Nixon resignation

Hey, I'm just writing to let you know that I have responded to your analysis of WP:WEIGHT and the first sentence at the Nixon talk page. Interesting topic! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith has been chosen as the first article in WikiProject Economics' first Featured Article drive

I am contacting you because you Supported the decision to choose Adam Smith as the first Featured Article that WikiProject Economics would work on. If you can, please help out and make this goal a reality! A discussion on this has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#The Featured Article drive is now closed. Thanks for your time! Gary King (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Homeschooling May 2008 Newsletter

	The Homeschooling WikiProject News
Issue Four • May 2008 • About the Newsletter
News Recent Project News Collaboration of the Month nominations are currently open for WikiProject Homeschooling's Collaboration of the month. So far there have been two nominations. You can nominate and vote at May's Collaboration page (link). Project member count reaches 37 members! Invite others using our invitation templates. A new article, List of homeschooled individuals has been created. You can help the project by tagging the talk pages of articles with {{WikiProject Homeschooling}} We are working on getting the homeschooling article to GA status.
Archives • Newsroom
Newsletter written by DiligentTerrier (and friends). Newsletter delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot

The message above has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot, a bot operated by Diligent Terrier.

Refactoring comments

Just wanted to let you know that changing the titles of others' talk page posts and moving entire threads to an unrelated talk page is inappropriate you way that you did it. You have done this twice now; I'm going to assume good faith for now, but I you want to debate this, please do so with the administrators at WP:AN. Thank you. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The transparency with which you seize every opportunity to engage in discussion of anything but the matters at hand is a wonder to behold. Unschool (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could just admit you're wrong and accept correction? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I may indeed be wrong. But all I have to go on right now is what appears to have been a hypersensitive criticism from an editor who still won't discuss my points. I have no idea how to proceed when someone makes an accusation, and then turns their back on an attempt to engage in a civil discussion on the merits of the two sides. I have had more contentious disagreements on Wikipedia than this. In the majority of cases when I have had a disagreement with an editor, I have been eventually been persuaded and come to agree with that other editor's point of view. But that has only happened because these other editors brought to the discussion the qualities of patience, intelligence, openmindedness and fairness that such a discussion requires. They strived to understand my point of view, and I strived to understand theirs. I'm sure that you possess these qualities yourself, otherwise you would not be able to achieve as much on Wikipedia as you have in such a short time on the project. I am just completely baffled as to why you do not make a sincere attempt to try to understand my perspective, but instead continue to address tangential points (which may very well be worth discussing, but which, when inserted into the discussion at this time, only serve to distract). However, I still have faith that you will rise to the occasion. Unschool (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with WP:POINT. I am completely lost as to how you feel this relates to our discussion. Unschool (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, what have I done? Now you will discuss this instead of my posts! :-) Unschool (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have trouble relating your "analogy" to this situation. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 23:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

- DiligentTerrier (and friends) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

- DiligentTerrier (and friends) 23:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have trouble relating your "analogy" to this situation. Thank you for that comment. [The bright yellow smiley face I could do without; emoticons are more than enough for my tastes. :-) ] Let me see if I can be more clear. I will start a new section.

What is an attack?

There are two ways of defining an "attack", both in the real world and here, on Wikipedia. One is to define an attack as anything that the alleged attacker intended as an attack. The other is to define an attack as anything which the alleged victim perceives as an attack. Which is the better method? If we use the former, then brutal battery committed by a sociopath would not be an "attack". [I didn't think he would mind me smashing his skull in, your honor.] If we use the latter, then every minute of our time will be taken up handling complaints that involve infinitesimal, if not imaginary, offense. [Your honor, when that worker at Subway asked me if I wanted a 'six inch or footlong', I felt offended at being treated like an object of his sexual desire.]

I felt that your accusation that my edit summaries were uncivil indicated that you may fall under the latter category of people. So which do I think is better? Truth be told, we cannot rely just on one or the other. In fact, we need to recognize that most of the time, reasonable people will simply agree on what constitutes an attack or offensive behaviour.

What I was asking you to do was to re-examine my edit summaries, to which you took such offense, and dwell on them for a moment. Maybe you could even ask someone else's opinion (preferably someone with whom you do not always see eye-to-eye, yet whom you respect). Really consider whether my comments constituted anything truly uncivil and thus worth the time that you spent in coming to my talk page to complain. I truly believe that the majority of people would be surprised that you considered my comments to cross the line into uncivil behaviour. But I may be wrong.

All I know is that I ran across some stuff on John Holt that surprised me, and I expressed my surprise in my edit summaries. Was it the most neutral way to express myself? Of course not. But neither passionate feelings nor lack of neutrality automatically equate with incivility. (Yes, they can be uncivil, but they are not necessarily so. Case-by-case basis.) So why has this been worth my time? Because I believe in WP:AGF. I think you do, too, but all of us sometimes fail this most difficult of tests. You assumed uncivil intent on my part where there was none. And yeah, that got under my skin, and I wanted you to listen to my explanation. And because I place a high value on discussion, (believing that it is our best hope for discovering the truth), I was simply further irked each time you found other things to talk about.

Anyway, am I any clearer now? Unschool (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think that your evolution over the past couple of months has been for the better; I see you maturing quite a bit as an editor. I just think you'll be a better editor if you don't look for things to label as offensive behaviour. Wait until something really big smacks you in the head before you start accusing others of behaviour, and you'll get even more done than you're already doing. Unschool (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would be obvious I was referring to Wikipedia's kind of civility and Wikipedia's kind of personal attacks. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, you are correct, insofar as your comment goes. Yes, we're both talking about WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA. I was utilizing analogies to make my point(s) about those policies. Look, these policies are, in essence, "laws" for Wikipedians, or rules, if you want to be more literally correct. But the point is, like all laws and rules and regulations, there exist—

1. behaviours that constitute obvious violations and that nearly every sane person would consider serious enough to impose sanctions,
2. other behaviours that are in a gray zone that some would consider to be violations but just as many people would not consider to be violations; and finally, a third class of
3. behaviours in which most persons will not even detect any violation, but which a few hypersensative persons will find offensive; those same hypersensatives will then dig into the letter of the law and find grounds to demand sanctions against the offending editor, even while most people consider there to have been no violation at all of the spirit of the law.

So yes, we are talking about the same policies. My question is: Do you see how WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA can be and are interpreted differently by others? Do you recognize that, what one person honestly considers to be acceptable behaviour, 90% of other Wikipedians could find that same behaviour to be grossly offensive, and contrarily, that what one person sincerely considers to be offensive, 90% of other Wikipedians could be puzzled or even shocked to learn it had been considered offensive by another editor? Unschool (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you understood all that, then why did you have to make those "analogies"? You went off the subject, most likely, in order to take the negative attention off yourself. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 00:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Classical Greek intellectuals, modern political philosophers, and Jesus himself all used analogies, and they did not do it "to take the negative attention off" themselves. Analogies have been used for millennia to illustrate a point more clearly, to a listener who did not follow the original point. Now once again you are—unintentionally, I'm sure—avoiding answering my questions. In my previous post I provided you with some very straightforward questions. Could you please answer them? Unschool (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that when you continually post in the same old section of my talk page[5] I am very unlikely to notice it since I'm usually only on Wikipedia once a day, and check my messages from the bottom. Please assume good faith and know that during that whole discussion I have never purposely ignored you. (Just so you know, I will be offline for a few days after this reply, and I if do get online, I won't be able to answer you next reply.) Maybe I'm still missing something, but where are your straightforward questions? If what you're trying to do is get me to take back my initial comment, know that I stand by it 100%. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly understand your point about not posting in the same section. I was doing that because I generally perceive it as easier to follow a discussion if it is not split up, i.e. I was attempting to be courteous. However, your point about not seeing it up there makes perfect sense as well, so I will post on the bottom from now on. (And, now that I think of it, I was being kind of silly, since the discussion itself is here, not there. Old habit.)

I'm not trying to make you "take back" anything. That hasn't been the point of this.

Okay, the questions were posted here, above the section where you went off on the tangent about analogies. I will go ahead and list them for you (however they will be easier to answer, I think, if you read them in the context above in which they first appeared):

• Do you see how WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA can be and are interpreted differently by others?
• Do you recognize that, what one person honestly considers to be acceptable behaviour, 90% of other Wikipedians could find that same behaviour to be grossly offensive, and contrarily, that what one person sincerely considers to be offensive, 90% of other Wikipedians could be puzzled or even shocked to learn it had been considered offensive by another editor?

One thing I'm trying to determine here is whether you and I have such different world views that it might be impossible for us to reach an understanding. I don't yet see the evidence for that, and I certainly don't want that—I mean, I do believe that it is beyond question that you are a sincere, well-meaning, extremely capable editor. It's just that, despite your obvious enthusiasm for this project, I am finding it more difficult to talk to you than I have any other editor over the past three years, including those with whom I've had serious disputes. I would actually prefer to just end this right here and now, but I cannot, because you have leveled a significant charge against me. I cannot just let that rest without talking it through, because if this is not worked out, it is extremely likely that (given some of our common areas of interest) we shall conflict again. I do not wish that—I want to come to an understanding.Unschool (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 15:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Answers to your questions:

• Do you see how WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA can be and are interpreted differently by others?
  • Yes. However, we are talking about Wikipedia's definition of an attack, not the world's definition of an attack.
• Do you recognize that, what one person honestly considers to be acceptable behaviour, 90% of other Wikipedians could find that same behaviour to be grossly offensive, and contrarily, that what one person sincerely considers to be offensive, 90% of other Wikipedians could be puzzled or even shocked to learn it had been considered offensive by another editor?
  • Yes.

Hope I've answered your questions. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in the conversation, however laconically. Okay, so we agree that it is possible for editors of good faith to honestly interpret these policies differently. Now look at my edit summaries, and compare them to the language of WP:NPA. Do my edits involve—

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets?

Clearly not.

• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views

Clearly not.

• Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.

Clearly not.

• Threats

Clearly not.

• Insulting or disparaging an editor

Hmmmmm. Is this what you're aiming at? I honestly don't know, because you've never once explained to me what you considered to be the basis of your allegation that I violated WP:CIVIL and (possibly) WP:NPA. Something in my post was offensive to you, but I'm left to wonder what exactly it is. (Though to you, I'm guessing, this is an obvious matter, or else you would have explained it.)

Let me tell you something. I believe that, before leveling such a charge against someone else, one should first of all engage one's own AGF function, and consider whether that person meant to be insulting or offensive or what. Sure, sure, you can't always know, but as I said in an earlier edit, most examples of offense are obvious. But some are not. What is AGF for, but to make sure that we recognize that other people don't see the world necessarily as we do, and to provide for that in our own responses? Now look above, where I wrote—

All I know is that I ran across some stuff on John Holt that surprised me, and I expressed my surprise in my edit summaries. Was it the most neutral way to express myself? Of course not. But neither passionate feelings nor lack of neutrality automatically equate with incivility. Yes, they can be uncivil, but they are not necessarily so.

Here's a question: Is my explanation of what happened a plausible explanation—that I was merely expressing surprise and not attacking? And if my version of events is plausible, does it even matter, or are my comments inherently offensive and uncivil regardless of my intent? My (hopefully) final comments depend on your answer to these questions. Unschool (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If your explanation of what happened is that you were: 1) surprised to see the article's assessment and that you 2) acted out of that surprised feeling by making what is certainly an uncivil edit summary, and what some might consider a personal attack (notice the italicized word and my initial comment, and yes - we are talking about WP:NPA not a real life attack - I'm not sure why you ever brought that up) ... then I can completely understand what took place. Do I consider that as an excuse for the rude edit summary? No. I still believe that the edit summary was uncivil, and that your feelings at the time did not give you a right to act in that manner. Do you feel that because you were surprised at the article's current assessment that gave you a right to make an uncivil comment in the edit summary? Will you admit that your edit summary was uncivil? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil? I certainly recognize that a reasonable person could interpret it in that way, even though that was not my intent. However, what you wrote were the following words: Please try to be more civil, as this edit borders on attacking a fellow editor. I have much greater trouble with this notion of borderline "attack".

It was for this reason that I pointed out the rape/construction worker's whistle analogy. I personally know people who literally believe that a look from a man (sans whistle, even) can constitute a form of rape. Personally, I think that that way of thinking is offensive to every woman who actually has been raped, and while these people may choose to be offended if they wish, I think most reasonable people think that these people are hypersensitive, and they need to learn to live in the real world, and recognize the difference between a real assault that is worth complaining about from a micro-offense, which is simply not worth bringing up.

In my humble opinion, based upon my best guess of what you were thinking, your complaint is analogous to the above persons who think that a leer is equivalent to rape. I believe that the level of offensiveness of my comments is so minor that I would never have believed that anyone would equate them with a personal attack. I think that your complaint falls into the same category as those people who tried to get political and religious userboxes banned from Wikipedians' user pages because seeing a Christian userbox was somehow offensive and devisive.

I think that we all need to exercise a bit of good faith, grow a bit thicker skin, and quit looking for opportunities to call someone out for being offensive. Hey, when someone really engages you in a personal attack, you not only know it, but everyone else knows it too—and that's the time to bring the issue up.

My point is that you've proven that you've got plenty enough to contribute to this encyclopedia that you don't need to be wasting your time worrying about who spit on the sidewalk or who passed gas in the elevator. Simply put, this did not rise to the level that it needed to be mentioned in the same sentence as the word "attack". In my opinion. Unschool (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question (or two) for you so I know where the conversation is going: Will you admit that the edit summary of yours that I cited in my initial post was uncivil? Do you understand why someone would take it as being uncivil? Do understand why someone might take it as a, although light, personal attack? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote above: Uncivil? I certainly recognize that a reasonable person could interpret it in that way, even though that was not my intent. However, what you wrote were the following words: Please try to be more civil, as this edit borders on attacking a fellow editor. I have much greater trouble with this notion of borderline "attack". Since this was apparently not clear, let me rephrase it: Yes, I can see how this could be read by some as an uncivil comment. If what you are looking for is a simple "yes" or "no", I remind you that we both agreed that reasonable people could have honestly different interpretations of what constitutes incivility. I respect and accept your interpretation of that edit summary as uncivil, even though you have not yet explained exactly why you saw it so. I even acknowledge that more people might take your side on this matter of incivility.

But do I understand why someone would take it as a personal attack, even a light one? DT, I'm telling you, for the life of me, no I don't see it, and I'd be pretty surprised to find that most people would see it your way on that one. But I'm fallible, and therefore am willing to listen to an explanation. (Two times out of three when I discuss an issue this long with someone they end up convincing me. So I'm listening.) Unschool (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So, you believe that no one could take that as a personal attack (WP:NPA)? Additional questions: Do you feel that because you were surprised at the article's current assessment that gave you a right to make an uncivil comment in the edit summary? Can you honestly say: "the edit summary I made that Diligent Terrier cited in his original post as being uncivil, was 100% civil"? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel that because you were surprised at the article's current assessment that gave you a right to make an uncivil comment in the edit summary? Did it give me a right to be uncivil? No, of course not. But actual incivility is a condition in the heart of the person uttering or writing the comment. Nevertheless, of course, the reader can (and must) infer civility or incivility from the person's comments. I am saying that my comments did not spring from an uncivil emotion, they sprang from surprise. You have every right to see this as uncivil—after all, it was (and still is) impossible for you to know the true condition of my heart when I wrote those words. And so, yes, as they read to you, they are uncivil. And now that we are talking, allow me to offer my apologies for making comments that you clearly and reasonably found to be uncivil. I assure you that I did not mean them in that way, but we are hardly—over the internet—going to ever be able to establish that to your satisfaction. No, no one ever has the right to be uncivil, and I never asserted such a right. I merely stated the condition of my mind upon making those comments. And it is quite possible, that had I taken more time, that I would not have made those comments, because a) I might have thought the matter through and recognized how someone might take it, and b) after a few moments, my surprise would have dissipated.

Can you honestly say: "the edit summary I made that Diligent Terrier cited in his original post as being uncivil, was 100% civil"? Well, given my previous response, obviously not.

So, you believe that no one could take that as a personal attack (WP:NPA)? No one? Heck, DT, like I was saying, there's always someone who will interpret things a given way. But that proves nothing. Sure I believe that there are people who could call that a personal attack—you just about did, didn't you? So yes, there are people who would take that as a personal attack. But, like I was saying, there are also people that believe that a woman has been raped if a man whistles at her, or that a convicted murderer sitting on death row has a right to a sex-change operation at public expense if he wants it. But what does this prove? Nothing. What matters is what the typical reasonable person would say about it, and I think that, while there are certainly some people who might agree with you that that is an attack in the WP:NPA meaning of the term, I think that there's far, far more people that would wonder what you were talking about. Now I could be wrong, because Wikipedia is a unique community. I've found people here who think that WP:UE requires the use of German-language article names with characters that don't exist in the English language, which is really, really hard for me to understand. So maybe people would take your side. But I rather doubt it. Unschool (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought this discussion was over! Please, everyone take into consideration an old saying from my tribe: "Always empty tipi when frost on buffalo nose" RC-0722 ^361.0/1 22:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

Unschool: I had some really good comebacks for everyone of your comments, but I just don't think we're getting anywhere when we have these petty little discussions. I would be in favor of just dropping this whole thing by now; it's already taken up enough of my time. Our discussion so far has not gotten anywhere, and you don't seem eager to admit that your original edit summary comment was uncivil. I am not about to report you for your failure to follow the civility principle, the rollback policy and the Refactoring talk pages guidelines. At first you pass it off as your reaction to the article's current rating, and then you state that your feeling could not have given you the right to act uncivilly. Then you say that you don't see how anyone could take it as a personal attack, but in my next question you go on to say that there's always someone who will interpret things in a given way. If you still have a few directly relevant questions for me that are 1) directly relevant to the current discussion and 2) that will actually help us get somewhere, then I will consider answering them if it will help us more understand each other's viewpoints. But for now, once again, I just don't see where we would be going if we continued the current discussion. So, I would like to know from you: where are you trying to get with this entire conversation? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You once again avoid the matter at hand.

It was you who asked if I wanted to talk about the original matter between us or the policy violations that you alleged against me in the moving of RC's comments. I said we could talk about the latter, since I was completely baffled by your accusation that I someone did not have the right to remove a non sequitur inserted into the middle of a discussion. I remain baffled, because, once again, I come here and find that you have chosen to address something else. Look, it was you, not I, that made the movement of his comments into an issue. I told you that I did not understand your objection, and I asked you to quote me a line from the policy that explains why my actions were incorrect. But as you do nearly every time, you refuse to answer the question asked. Is this because you are unable to come up with an answer?

The statement, Our discussion so far has not gotten anywhere, is largely true, but that is not my fault. You have persistently avoided answering direct questions, you have taken refuge in difficult questions by resorting to tangential accusations of my ostensible policy violations, and when your friend left completely irrelevant comments that disrupted the flow of the our conversation (which had finally started moving, after several lengthy, unnecessary delays), rather than ask him to be polite and not be disruptive, you supported him in his actions. Sure, you may have correctly stated policy, but you could also have pointed out that his comments did not help the conversation. That certainly is what I would have done if I was engaged in a conversation which I was taking seriously and was disrupted by my friend. But perhaps you weren't taking the conversation seriously. That would certainly also go a long way toward explaining my need to go to your talk page and repeatedly ask you to reply. It would also explain your opportunistic forays into other policy issues. If I were engaged in a conversation which I was taking seriously, and the person with whom I was talking committed a violation of policy or etiquette, or whatever, I would be quite capable of pointing out their breach, but also continuing the original conversation. You, however, when I would do something that you felt you could point out was a breach of proper behaviour, you dropped the original conversation altogether, or make a joke of the matter. Only after many days, and me having to remind you once or twice about our conversation, would you come back to it. It appears that you believe that, if you catch someone making one error, that that person no longer has the moral right to carry on the original conversation. Frankly, this type of behaviour might well come across to some people as a way of avoiding the issues being discussed, though fortunately, I know that you are so well-versed in Wikipedian etiquette that you would never engage in such subterfuge.

This conversation (if it can be called that) has been as long and discombobulated as it is for only one reason: You have chosen to make it so. I have had some pretty intense discussions with some editors over the years, with some who were ferociously angry over our differences of opinion. Some of these conversations and debates have lasted weeks and even months. Yet in all of them, before this one, the conversations proceeded with clear answers respectfully provided to questions asked, with each of us allowing the other to build propositions to make points, and to understand that different people can intelligently and honestly have different interpretations of policy. But from you and you alone, my perception has been that you feel that you can sweep in, make accusations, and anyone who disagrees with you, well, the hell with them if they don't know that you have the facts on your side.

You say, I am not about to report you for your failure to follow the civility principle, the rollback policy and the Refactoring talk pages guidelines as if you're doing me some kind of favor. Well, I challenge you to report me. You ask, where are you trying to get with this entire conversation? My entire point is and has been that you have leveled accusations against me that, when examined by most reasonable people, would get you laughed at. As I've said, there's always someone who will complain about anything, but most reasonable people will be absolutely astounded that you believe that this could be considered an attack, or that moving these irrelevant and disruptive comments was inappropriate and unacceptable, or that this constitutes a good faith attempt at discussion. I've been looking around over the last month. I'm not the only editor who has found you unusually difficult to deal with. I'm quite sure that I would not be the only one who would love the opportunity to sound off at a hearing on "my" offenses.

Look, I don't want this to be hostile. I just want one thing: Honest, direct conversation, where we respectfully ask and answer one another questions. I believe in the process of discussion, as opposed to the dictating. (That's not to say that I don't sometimes violate that belief; I have emotions, and sometimes I might make a quick edit or comment without thinking it all through. But that's the exception, and when such exceptions occur, I have no problem responding to friendly corrections by my fellow editors. My default setting is to apologize quickly; it takes some fairly arrogant comments to get my dander up.) But when I ask a question, and get no answer, or worse, a non-answer, and then this happens repeatedly, logically I must question either the other editor's good faith or intelligence. You seem to be a pretty sharp cookie, judging by your knowledge of policy, your impressive user page, and your widespread activities beyond the mainspace. So why is it so hard to get you to provide straightforward answers to questions? Why is it that you seem to seize every opportunity to change the subject? I honestly don't know. I've never met a Wikipedian like you, and I'm still trying to figure this out. As I stated earlier, I would just let it pass but I'm sure that we're going to run into one another in the future, given our similar educational and political viewpoints; when that happens, I would like our interaction to be as fellow editors who harbor no outstanding points of contention. I would hope that you would want the same.

At this point, even I am having trouble figuring out where this should go next. I've tried, through the use of analogies, direct questions, weak attempts at Socratic reasoning, to get you to understand how another person could intelligently and honestly and reasonably hold some difference of opinion as to what constitutes an attack. You either cannot or simply refuse to open your mind; the world is all black and white, shades of gray do not exist. At least, that's how you come across to me. You know, you would make an excellent Rubiconian (That was meant as a light-hearted ribbing, not as a personal attack. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Completely irrelevant comments." My comments were relevant, but da jus me. Also, if DT's a Rubiconian, that makes me a Klingon? I will try not to "distract" you two any more. I will not waste any more of my (and your) time by dissecting your comment. So to you, I bid adieu. (blip) RC-0722 ^361.0/1 03:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, everyone take into consideration an old saying from my tribe:"Always empty tipi when frost on buffalo nose" This may very well have meaning to you, but to the average person, it surely comes across as a non sequitur. And no, RC, you don't come across as the Klingon type at all. Maybe a tribble, but not a Klingon. :-) Unschool (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you wanted a translation all you had to do was ask. It means (roughly): Stop bickering. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, what you call bickering, I call discussing or debating, and I think that debate is a good thing. It may be difficult while you're going through it, but if both parties participate in it sincerely, then when you are finished, you are likely to have reached a resolution which will make future relationships more peaceful. That is true not only on Wikipedia, but in life; people who can honestly discuss their differences without rancor are more likely to get along in the long run. Unschool (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If only life was actually like that. Happy editing! RC-0722 ^361.0/1 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is over

Due to time availible, I was not able to read your entire reply, but your little discussion with RC caught my attention, and I noticed where you said that debating is a good thing. That statement confirmed what I felt all along - that you are just looking for a fight. Well, I'm not and I will no longer answer any questions related to this discussion. If there is something you really need to find out or something you think I did wrong, please take the issue to the administrators' noticeboard. If it is not important enough to go there, then we can probably just get over it, like to initially told me to do. Thank you. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your "living person" template

Your "living person" template at User:Unschool/The Living Person Tag is showing up as a standard template at Category:Temporal templates. I would like to interest you in changing the category for it to [[:Category:Temporal_templates]] (with the colon preceding the category name) so this humorous user-space creation does not show up in the category.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, my intent was actually not to be humourous, it was trying to illustrate a point. Regardless of that, you are correct that it should not be appearing on that page. I am a technophobic kind of person (that template took me days to create) and unsure if I could fix this situation. I would be grateful if you could take the necessary steps on my behalf. Unschool (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the permission. I'll give the change a try. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done, and still looks like it did before. By the way, I am rather sympathetic to the dated essay decrying (needless) use of templates. I've been hoping to reduce the proliferation at Category:Temporal templates, via the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion process. Reviewing the category is what brought me here.
  -- Regards -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Duval County Public Schools

I tend to agree with you. A large percentage of High Schools are not notable; almost no elementary or middle schools are. The stub article on James Weldon Johnson Middle School was unnotable and recommended to merge into the School district's article. The editor in question appears to be sympathetic by setting up an info table, but I know of nothing notable about the subject. The school is included in the template, Duval County Public Schools. Thanks for asking. Mgreason (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

NFL Draft

Thanks for your work on the article - it certainly is better now. While not really the correct way to do it I knew that it would get immediate attention and hoped that someone would fix the significant errors, as you have done. A little cheeky but quite effective in a way that discussion pages sometimes are not. Good work - a retired Wikipedian. 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Unschool (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback?

Hey Unschool, I saw your comments at WT:RFA, I was wondering if you would like me to grant you rollback rights. It does make undoing vandalism a little faster and more efficient. If you are interested just let me know! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, but the last time I was granted "rights" (I think to Vandal Proof) I never used it a single time. Never could figure it out. (By the way, I'm not an idiot. I just don't automatically take to tech stuff like some people do. I remember it taking me a while to find an edit counter that I could use because the ones I had first learned about required me to type in some line of code in somewhere or some crap like that. I just need it simple.)

But if you won't be offended if I dont' use it, then sure, I'll take a look. Unschool (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you now have rollback. All rollback is, is a quick way to revert an edit. If you go and look at the history of an article, instead of just seeing (undo) next to the most recent edit, you should see (rollback|undo). Clicking the "rollback" button will immediately revert that edit, you dont even need to put an edit summary in, as it automatically produces a generic one. Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism or edits in your own user space though. Also remember that if the editor has made more than 1 edit in a row, when you hit rollback it will revert all of the edits by the user that are in a row. If you have anymore questions, let me know! Good luck :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not knowing about these posts, I saw your comments at WT:RFA, checked your user rights, assumed that you already had rollback and didn't know it, and made this post: [6]. I only mention it here because I linked to Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Check that link out for a quick walk through of how to use rollback--it really is easy. Good luck, Darkspots (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Checking it out as we type. Unschool (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I thought you would like it, and definitely check out the link Darkspots provided. Good luck. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Unschool. I just now read the thread at WT:RFA ("A totally separate point about Huggle"), and it elicited a bitter-sweet smile. I too feel extremely low-tech in this environment, and, those few times I attempted RC patrol, I always lagged several steps behind. RC patrol is great at catching obvious and bulky vandalism, but a lot of little and annoying changes easily get overlooked, so I added over 12,000 pages to my watchlist, covering entire topic spans that interest me or with which I am familiar. Sometimes I also click on a category page, and use the recent changes feature in order to monitor the pages linked there. I often catch vandalism several days old (sometimes months old). It also allows me to wikify or tweak good faith and potentially helpful edits. I do it sporadically, when I have the time and nerve, but it never makes me feel like my actions are useless. Let the tech-wizards wield their powerful machines, there is plenty left to sweep up for those limping behind with the old broom. ;-) ---Sluzzelin talk 20:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Overly Long Plot Summaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plot_summaries#Length_of_plot_summaries.

Plus this warning, which is created by typing in (check the editing screen)

In short, there are too many worries re: telling absolutely everything that happens in the plot.

I hope this helps. Lots42 (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must say, I agree totally with your intentions. I have often felt that plot summaries in some articles must have taken as long to type as the movie was to view. I agree that it would not only be more encyclopedic, but it would also simply be better writing to shorten plot sections. Having said that, let me point out the following:

• The essay on plot summaries does not yet even carry the weight of a guideline, let alone a policy. As such, few editors are likely to support you. Or rather, the editors that have invested their time and efforts in creating these leviathan plot sections will almost certainly fight you. They'll say things like

1. "Including some plot details and not others is POV", or
2. "We are here to provide all the information that exists to provide, we can't leave anything out", or simply,
3. "You are acting contrary to existing policy/guidelines; if you persist in shortening plot summaries that have existed with consensus for months/years, you will be blocked for vandalism".

I'm not saying I agree with any of these viewpoints; indeed, I am on your side. But anytime any of us acts unilaterally (and I categorize a group's efforts as "unilateral", no matter how many are in the group, if it is done outside of normal channels), you can and should expect resistance from the PTB.

• I think the material in there about the legal concerns about copyright violations are total bunk. Nonetheless, since I believe in concise plot summaries, I'm on board. But not because of some silly legal threat. I wouldn't bring it up with most editors, if you're trying to proselytize; even if by some chance it's truly a concern, most editors are going to laugh at it.
• The essay is only, what, three weeks old? You've got a long way to go. Nonetheless, I agree with this approach. The way for us backbenchers to make changes around here is, well, to simply make them, and then seek the support of others. I don't really think it was the primary intent behind BOLD, but BOLD does serve to support the action.
• In this campaign, I will not support the placement of that ugly tag at the top of the article, or any place conspicuous. I believe that this encyclopedia is written for the readers, not the editors. This tag is a call for an editor to do something, not the reader. Yes, shorter plot summaries are good. But a reader coming here to read about the movie will not be helped by this tag. The only tags I would support are ones that somehow really help the reader with something that he could not otherwise recognize as an issue. I think that most readers can tell if an article lacks citations, is poorly written and in need of cleanup, or has a ridiculously long plot summary. I think that perhaps POV tags are justified, since the novice reader may not recognize the bias in an article. I think that, instead of placing the tag, if an editor has a problem with the length of the plot summary, that he should just fix it. If he really can't, perhaps for lack of time, and he want to tag the article so that it gets categorized and can be easily found again for editing, then let him place the tag on the talk page, or at worst, at the bottom of the article's mainspace.

Anyway, I'm happy with what you are doing, and I consider myself a supporter of your campaign. Good luck. Unschool (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think campaign is too serious of a word. I think plot 'summaries' where every single solitary thing is mentioned violate copyright. If someone wants to restore my deletion, oh well. Lots42 (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. As a slight coincidence, I found this on my watchlist page; I feel it is a helpful example of my thoughts;

cur) (last) 08:43, 26 May 2008 Luminum (Talk | contribs) (27,862 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits. The expanded bio is informative, but not notable. Please limit entries to notable character instances/involvement; We don't need to know EVERY thing he did in Alpha Flight) (undo) Lots42 (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For sorting out a series of major vandal edits on the University of Southern California's article. You're actions were significant enough to prompt me to finally award a Barnstar. --Bobak (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility

You seem to be doing a lot of good work, and in particular i had much the same thots as you abt the use of "the Dakotas" discussed at Talk:The Dakotas#Expansion; IIRC i decided not to comment only bcz it would have distracted from what i had to say abt the overall problems with the article. But i'd like to urge you to re-weigh your closing misgivings abt having commented: it seems to me that altho you sort of dissed yourself for the attention you gave it, it's likely that out mutual colleague will have taken as well the message "Oops, i just wasted my time by paying attention to you!" and that, however unintentionally, you may have in effect dissed that well-intentioned colleague. Hope you'll give that some thought, and in any case, thanks and hope you continue your good service to the 'pedia.
--Jerzy•t 18:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a fair point. I shall try to make amends. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wilson Frost

Hi,

The article you created, Wilson Frost appeared to have no references, as there was no reference syntax in the article.

I tagged it as unreferenced, then I saw the references in the source, and made changes to make them appear here.

I have removed the 'unreferenced' tag.

The refs still need tidying up, maybe using a WP:CITATION template, so that they show the name, title, etc.

I hope this helps in improving the article,

Any questions, please post to my own talk page.

Regards, --  Chzz  ►  02:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. I am not very knowledgeable about adding citations to articles; the way you found them is the only way I know how to do it. And before you tell me where to go to learn the proper way, let me tell you that I'm just too old and set in my ways to learn some of that techie stuff. I'm here for content, and I'm extremely grateful to those of you who understand such things and basically clean them up. Feel free to do that thing you were talking about that would make the name show up (I presume you mean, to show up in the reference section). Thanks again. Unschool (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. First, you're very welcome; second, thanks for letting me know you'd responded on my talk page - I have been going through new articles, and consequently have so many in my watchlist, it's virtually impossible to keep track of all conversations.

Now - regarding references - I perfectly understand your comments; however, the problem is that a lot of other people patrolling new pages would be likely to tag your article for immediate deletion because it did appear unreferenced.

I would strongy advise that you simply add <ref> at the beginning of references, and </ref> at the end of them. At the end of the article, make a section ==References== with a line reading {{refs}}. That is all that's needed, and it would save a lot of problems in the longer term.

I hope you'll note I'm not going to point you at lots of techie articles about citation styles and templates, etc etc! I would be grateful if you could do that little bit though.

Also, in future, if you do have any techie issues, please feel free to ask me. I'm always very happy to try and help improve the wikipedia project in whatever way I can. I have no idea at all about the history of Aldermen, or anything else very useful - so my way of contributing is often to help others with the knowledge to create quality articles.

If we all share our skills, hopefully the world becomes a bit better place!

(The above certainly includes asking me to 'fix up' references or anything else in any new articles you might make)

Best regards, --  Chzz  ►  03:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback abuse

Maybe you're not aware of this but you're only allowed to use rollback for reverting vandalism. Note that other users have been blocked for this in the past or had their rollback privileges taken away. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the citation of your edit for reference: [7] - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually I'm aware of that. I had intended to hit "undo". Of course, an argument can be made that placing a non sequitur in the middle of a lucid conversation does constitute vandalism, but that was not the reason for what I did. It was a simple error.

I trust that this will not long distract us from completing our conversation? Unschool (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith for now, but I have a hard time doing this when this is now the second time I'm warning you about refactoring comments [8]. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear up an issue here: Rollback CAN be used for purposes other than vandalism fighting, although very few. Five Years 03:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked reverted a good faith edit in the user talk namespace is not a legit reason to use rollback. And yes, rollback can be used for other purposes. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 16:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"The rollback feature is available to administrators and users with the rollbacker permission on Wikipedia as a fast method of undoing edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism and nonsense. Now, the edits that Unschool reverted weren't vandalism or nonsense. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 17:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Like hell they weren't. I'm not sure how, but somehow, in the coming and going of this old (and retired debate) I missed these last two comments by DT and RC. I would ignore them but for the fact that this section is a record of behaviours, and I cannot allow to pass unchallenged the ridiculous assertion that I have abused rollback privileges. First of all, as I explained above, I actually had intended to hit "undo", but accidentally hit "rollback", which is pretty easy to do. But even if I had deliberately chosen to use rollback, it would not have constituted abuse. Here was the situation: DT and I were engaged in a debate about civility and other issues, and then his buddy RC chimes in with this comment:

• Please, everyone take into consideration an old saying from my tribe: "Always empty tipi when frost on buffalo nose"[9]

I submit that upwards of 90% of en.Wikipedians would read that and consider it to either nonsense, vandalism, a non sequitur, or anything else except a good faith edit. And it was not the first time that RC had interupted my attempt to talk to DT with apparent nonsense. Take a look at this gem, also inserted into a conversation to which he was not a party:

• Hesky tesky shatzkabini putchi on the beatnica with knifis.[10]

This is the kind of gibberish that DT and RC want us to accept as "good faith edits". Bullshit. DT and RC are both using some wack interpretation of policy to try and accuse me of rollback abuse. And I just wanted that on the record; I don't want someone coming back into these archives someday and see that I somehow tacitly acknowledged that I had committed rollback abuse, because I most certainly did not. Unschool (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume that everyone who has ahd a conversation with me has read my userpage, or at least my dictionary. As for the Mvskoke saying, you could have asked for a translation. Also, I will leave you with one final saying: Put a helmet on. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 18:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I assume that everyone who has ahd [sic] a conversation with me has read my userpage. I might suggest you disabuse yourself of such an egocentric notion.
• As for the Mvskoke saying, you could have asked for a translation. If something has the appearance of gibberish, who would even think to ask for a translation? Gibberish, after all, cannot be translated. Beyond that, if it requires a translation, then it is presumptuous and rude to insert it into a conversation to which you had been neither a participant nor an invitee. Good day, sir. Unschool (talk) 01:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Since this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit from anywhere at anytime, I do not require a formal invitation to join a discussion. 2. Gibberish can be translated. 3. My tribe's saying does not have the appearance of gibberish. 4. Asking for a tranlsation would have been better than removing my comment. 5. ahd=had. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 01:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

1. "I do not require a formal invitation to join a discussion" No, a formal invitation is not required, but it is helpful if you bring an ounce or two of common sense, such as recognizing that others may not understand your "language". If I enter an English conversation with comments in French, and I expect others to readily accept my comments, then I am a fool (and French, at least, is a language that a great many editors would be able to recognize, even if they can't translate).
2. "Gibberish can be translated"? For your edification, from dictionary.com: gibberish: 1.meaningless or unintelligible talk or writing. How does one translate the meaningless?
3. "My tribe's saying does not have the appearance of gibberish." An opinion to which you are entitled to share with whomever you can find.
4. "Asking for a tranlsation would have been better than removing my comment." Did you read what I wrote? No one would ask for a translation of what they reasonably believed was nonsense. What would be the point? (Did you bother to read that Piaget that I recommended to you?)

Unschool (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

1. You removed my comment knowing it had a meaning, and that that meaning was relevant to your discussion. 2. You are trying to expunge your actions by saying that my statement was "gibberish," but my comment being gibberish would be your opinion. 3. By your definition, if you met anyone who spoke a different lanugage than you, you would say they were talking "gibberish" simply because you couldn't understand what they were saying. So to you I bid adieu, Wea-ther man. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 16:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You lie. When I removed it I had no clue that it had meaning, I believed it to be a total non sequitur, as I pointed have pointed out many times. I "knew" no such thing. But even if I had known that you ascribe meaning to your post, it would still have been rude of you to place it there, just as it would be rude of me to insert Spanish or French or Russian or Japanese into an English conversation anywhere. Whether on Wikipedia or in life, you just don't walk into a conversation in one language and step into a conversation with another language not spoken by all the participants. I would have thought that only a child would not have known that. And I do not regard other languages as gibberish, I am fascinated by them. But I didn't know that you were claiming your post had meaning; it had the appearance of gibberish. (This is like talking with a twelve-year old, for Pete's sake. Who doesn't understand such things?) If you were interested in actually communicating (which, by the way, is the purpose of the talk pages), you could have either included a translation on the spot or a link to a translation. I'm still amazed at the fact that you assume that every person on whose talk pages you leave a post is somehow supposed to have read your personal dictionary. What an infantile assumption that is. Unschool (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) You should have been able to tell it had meaning by the rest of my comment. Also, I have entered conversations where everyone spoke English, and I started speaking Latin. They did not scold me, as you are attempting to do, they simply asked the meaning of my statements. However, I do not wish to continue this discussion with you, since at this point you are merely ranting, but I will leave you with this final statement: You may think I'm an idiot, but don't treat me like one. Good day, wea-ther man. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 17:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The rest of your comment? Here's a complete post, from May 18: Hesky tesky shatzkabini putchi on the beatnica with knifis.[11]. Yes, now I see what you mean, now that I see it in context, its meaning is perfectly clear. You see, I had originally thought that because we were discussing topics like Userboxes and WP:NPA, that your comment lacked relevance. But now that I look at the whole thing, yes, I see your point. I am sooooooo sorry for the misunderstanding. A thousand pardons I beg of you. Unschool (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

sa'right. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 18:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Distraction?

Heaven knows that I don't want to allow this to distract from things again, but I do need some enlightenment here. I do not understand why it is that what I did with RC's comments is wrong. I have often seen disruptive comments deleted entirely from talk pages, you yourself have removed comments that I have placed on your talk page, and here I have left his comments in place despite the fact that they were as disruptive to the conversation as this is to an article. All I did was to merely place a divider between his non sequitur and our conversation. I will assume good faith as well; that is, I will assume that you are not just trying to avoid closure on the conversation, and I await a lesson complete specific passages that make it clear that I am in clear violation of some policy. There is nothing in the spirit of Wikipedia that I have violated, as far as I know. Unschool (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time that I have warned you on this. If you believe I have warned you incorrectly, please take this to WP:AN. Thank you. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 23:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you have warned me incorrectly. I don't know what policy is, I am asking for you, who so clearly believe in what you are doing, to educate me about this matter. You're the only person that I can recall bringing up this matter, so I'm asking you to explain. Unschool (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to bring something up to some other administrator if I don't know what I'm talking about. Unschool (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Now, the last time I checked, a Mvskoke indian from Connecticut was part of the anybody. Now, pray tell, how was disturbing your discussion? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 23:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply from my talk: This is the refactoring comments policy. RC's comments were replies to certain other comments, and should be taken in the context of where they were. Moving all of them to a separate section makes him look stupid. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Replied on my talk page. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Message to User:Diligent Terrier

Per the advice of User:Five Years, I am letting this matter between us drop. Your unwillingess (or inability—it would not be right of me to presume your intent) to engage in a sincere discussion to resolve our differences was evident long ago. Only my essential belief in what I sometimes foolishly assume to be a universal intrinsic desire to seek truth kept me going, as you veered off the path into trivial accusations designed to avoid dealing with questions about your own methods. But I realize now that we do not share this same quest for honesty, and I am dropping the matter here and now.

It is with sincerity that I wish you the best in your future Wikiediting. Though I have expressed concern earlier that we may conflict on some pages of common interest, I shall avoid such conflict unless it is over a matter of huge import to the content of an article; I shall never again allow myself to be dragged into a mere philosophical discussion with you (as there is no evidence that you ever engaged on a philosophical level in this one).

My parting suggestion for you is simply this: Attempt to learn the spirit of Wikipedia's policies, not just the letter. They were created to reduce conflict, not to be brandished in the face of others. The fact that we can cite a potential policy violation does not necessarily mean that we should; judicious use of warnings is, well, judicious. The day may come when you will realize that the approach that I took in our conflict was actually (at the start, anyway) a compassionate approach. Another may come along one day with far less patience and far more clout to deal with your style of policing.

Good day, DT. Unschool (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I, of course, responded to the points and non-related analogies that you made. But you apparently feel that I was the one who got off subject. Well, happy editing.  :) - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I had, until now, kept an open mind as to whether your intransigence was the result of willful obstinance or intellectual incapacity. Your inability to recognize the relevance of my analogies confirms that it is the latter. As such, I apologize for having having considered that you were trying to be difficult; you just couldn't help yourself. Unschool (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Homeschooling newsletter for June 2008

	The Homeschooling WikiProject News
Issue Five • June 2008 • About the Newsletter
News Recent Project News User:Diligent Terrier has retired. Project member count reaches 37 members! Invite others using our invitation templates. You can help the project by tagging the talk pages of articles with {{WikiProject Homeschooling}} We are working on getting the homeschooling article to GA status.
Archives • Newsroom
Newsletter written by User:RC-0722. Newsletter delivered by User:RC-0722

RfA Review

Hello Unschool. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Unschool/Sandbox , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 16:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but my answers are already posted there. The copy in the sandbox is just some post-thoughts I was sandboxing. Thanks for checking up on things; I wasn't before convinced that anyone was really tracking this stuff. Unschool (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Jacksonville

You may be right about the city limits. The City of Jacksonville does have authority over the entire county, but the beaches and Baldwin do have their own governments and their own signs telling you when you're entering or leaving them. It's a pretty minor distinction, as Jacksonville still has authority over them even within their limits, since as you say it acts as the county. I'd like to see something definite about this.

And yes I thought the statue bit was way too trivial for the lead.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm cleaning it up

I'm cleaning it up. Before i came it was terrible. I deleted some section yes because they where a mess. I'm just trying to clean the mess. You can help me if you want. But then its goin to be in these boxes. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll remember that. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Years

Hey. I noticed your recent interest in the 2000s article and wondered if you would like to join this wikiproject and help us set up standards for decades articles and improve them. Wrad (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Under construction template at Chicago Spire

Hi! I recently restored the under construction template at the Chicago Spire article. I realize it may serve to be redundant. I'm one of those people at Wikipedia who find a lot of tags redundant and annoying.

This tag, however, informs the reader that much of the information may be of a speculative nature. I think that is important. Additionally, I'm pretty sure that all of the other major skyscraper projects also carry this tag. Look at Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) or Burj Dubai as examples. If the tag shouldn't be used at Chicago Spire, it probably shouldn't be used anywhere. Consistenc is probably important. If you want to make the case about articles in general not carrying this tag, then maybe it should be discussed at the architecture wikiproject or template discussion page. Chupper (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good

Good why are you asking? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering, since I first created it for you what--about three weeks ago?--whether or not it was helping with your large projects. Unschool (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you delete comments from your talk space? Just curious. (I was confused by the heading until I realized what you had done.) Unschool (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

hm sorry about that and i delete comments instead of archiving them and yes the sandbox is helping me alot specialy with the Songs for the Deaf article so yes thanks for making me a sandbox. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it's been useful.

I think you may find someday that archiving your talk comments, instead of deleting them, might also prove useful. Your user page indicates that you are trying to overcome a bit of taint from some earlier behaviour. It will be easier to do this if you do not delete your talk page comments. Other editors frequently (though not always correctly) regard this as a sign that the deletionist editor is trying to "cover his tracks". If you hate a long user talk page, or if you find archiving a pain in the ass, there are automatic archival systems available that will do it for you--every day if you like. I would recommend you consider looking into this, as you continue on your path of good citizenship. Unschool (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into that one. Question where can i find it? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know much about it, because I don't auto-archive (I actually like long talk pages.) But two editors who use some form of auto-archiving (and hundreds do this, not just these guys) are User:Tony1 and User:Gary King. I'd start by leaving a message on their talk pages asking them how to get started with auto-archiving. Unschool (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Another question how did you manage to get this The Barnstar of Peace, thats one of reason why i got blocked. My question is how to you manage it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I started off—like so many Wikipedians—hotheaded and determined to make sure that "the truth" (I was soooo sure I knew what truth was) was the standard here on Wikipedia. Well, I came to eventually see that the truth, especially in an international community, comes in many flavors. I instead embraced a new value: AGF. I just assume that whatever that other guy is doing he is doing because he sincerely believes that he is doing what is best for the encyclopedia. And I respect him and his feelings before I begin to engage him in discussion. And most of the time, that's all it takes—just give him the benefit of the doubt. Oh, I still get a little hot on occasion, but I try not to let it show. In the last year, I think I've had only one conflict that did not end amicably, and that, I finally realized after weeks of discussion, was due to the intellectual limitations of the other editor. And you can't get mad at a fellow because he's dumb, can you? He's as much a part of the universe as you and I. Unschool (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In the last year i've been in twenty or more conflicts or so and a guy started a edit war on the Aerosmith discography today. Any way im goin to try something new, try a diplomatic solution. Well nice to talk to you User:Unschool. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You Tube links

Links were removed because thier (C) Status was unclear.. Nothing in WP:El prevents the removal of links in that state. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:C#Linking_to_copyrighted_works - Basicly unless it can be shown a link is legitmate, it can go if it's suspected of being copyvio. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Billy Mays

Thanks, I reverted to the vandalized version by accident. Huggle was lagging a bit. justinfr (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was prety obvious to all what happened. No worries. Unschool (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Help

I see you have editted the 2000s page fairly frequently. I must ask you, could you help me clean up the 1990s decade page? I am apparently in an editting war with Buddha24 and everytime I clean it up he reverts it back. I mimicked the style of the 2000s page with subpages relating to subjects like Culture of the 1990s, 1990s in video gaming, etc... but everytime I remove items they are placed back within a few hours. I cleaned it to a point where only significant events were mentioned, but the article is still fairly long even without all the pop culture and things that cluttered it before. Any suggestions to help me or any suggestions to solve an edit war. Thanks. (Tigerghost (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Wow, dude, I feel your pain, I truly do. But I don't really have the time to help, and I don't want to get a reputation as someone who thinks that he's the Lord of the Decades articles. My only advice would be to read through the archives of Talk:2000s and see the type of arguments that were made. Make your arguments on the talk page as strong and logical as you can, wait for others to appear who support you, and when you think you have a consensus of responsible and involved editors, act boldly and wield your axe. One thing that makes your position slightly weaker: Those of us who detested the monstrosity that 2000s had become 18 months ago were able to say, "Hey, the decade's not even over; who knows what will be of lasting significance?" The 1990s are over, of course, though you can make the argument that they're not far enough back for us to have much perspective. Anyway, good luck to you. Unschool (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice. I'll continue on trying to clean up the 1990s decade page so that it will somehow resemble the 2000s one, but first I'll do what you said in trying to find a coalition of users that would somehow support me. I must admit I did my fair share of adding the nonsense to that article, but after seeing how the 2000s page is more efficent with branching articles on different subjects, I guess other decade pages should follow the example. If nothing else I can wait until the page is deleted for POV, length, and original research it can be started over again from scratch. (Tigerghost (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Wikitwins?

Wow, I just found out something kinda neat. You and I, Tigerghost, both registered our respective usernames on the exact same day--September 18, 2005. Does that make us Wikitwins? Unschool (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That is kind of neat, how would you find that out? I didn't even remember my Wikibirthday. (Tigerghost (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Go to this page and just type in your User name, Tigerhost. You'll like it. Unschool (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

PHM

Long time no see, howdy. You seem like a smart guy so can please do me a favour and tell what grammar mistakes i have one the Qotsa discography, its a FL nominated page. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this earlier; don't know how I overlooked it. Do you still need some copyediting? Unschool (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Unalaska

I did a history merge to fix a cut-and-paste move from Unalaska to Unalaska Island (note that the first revision of that diff was originally at the Unalaska article). I also made it so that the person who wrote the initial text of Unalaska Island (this revision) got the credit for it in the page history, and the original writer of that text could be easily identified. To do this, I had to split *some* of the history from the page history of Unalaska and move it to Unalaska Island. I didn't merge all the history from Unalaska because there used to be an article at the Unalaska page which was text-merged into Unalaska, Alaska. Hope this helps, even though it probably makes a lot of unsense. :-) Graham87 14:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Okay, I think I understand.

Incidentally, though I now see it was not you who set it up this way, I see that Unalaska redirects to the island, and not the town. I'm quite sure that the vast majority of people who bandy about the term "Unalaska" are referring to the town, not the island. Anything wrong with me changing the direction of the redirect to the town? Unschool (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No not at all. Graham87 03:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

PROD tagging

When tagging articles with {{prod}} don't forget to notify the creator, like this. Thanks, « Diligent Terrier [talk] 14:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your reminder. I should have known better, but I just forgot. I've left a supplemental note after your notification on the relevent editor's talk page. Again, thanks. Unschool (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries; completely understood. Cheers, « Diligent Terrier [talk] 15:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Daniela Rhodes is a fellow of the Royal Society, putting her in a very small elite of the U.K.'s top scientists. See this lengthy discussion for some background:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive157#Mass speedy deletion of Fellows of the Royal Society

The problem is that the author, unaware of our aggressive monitoring of new articles for notability, rolled out a bunch of tiny stubs all at once, rather than rolling out bigger stubs just a few at a time. All those scientists are notable.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've surveyed the discussion, and I understand your point. But I also object to the form that the article had at the time that I prodded it. Would we accept an article, that, in its entirety, read: Phil Wilson is an MP. I don't think so. This article just wasn't an article. Anyway, it's now been improved, and I'm okay with it. But I don't buy the argument that membership in the FRS, without any further elaboration, constitutes an article. Just my 2¢ worth. Unschool (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:2020 Olympics

Nope, I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the IP edits (look at History), the edits without any references. I was actually relieved that there was also someone who is cleaning up the article aside from me. Xeltran (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okefenokee. Just checking. Unschool (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm in the process of requesting the page to be protected (silly me for putting up that template quickly). Xeltran (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Valerie Wilson

Sure, it'll be at User:Unschool/Valerie Wilson talk in just a few minutes. Why do you want the talk page, though? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's been generally decided that it's ok to gather up evidence like that if you have an honest belief that there is some abuse going on, just in case it gets extremely troublesome to the point action needs to be taken. Just don't stalk him and you should be ok. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No, no stalking required. It's only the subject of Valerie Wilson that's been an issue. I suppose that there are other articles that he messes with, but the problem that I've been aware of is that he kept deleting references to her winning "million dollar" prizes, because he felt that the New York Lottery should offer a lump sum version instead of only an annuity prize. It's so crazy it's nearly impossible to explain, but basically he is on a crusade against the verbiage of the New York lottery—he claims that no one has ever won a million dollars in New York, since it's paid over a 20-year period. Just weird. Unschool (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

re: comment @ lunar eclipse.

It is not meant to be outdated by default, unless you are up to it to fix it at the end of the event - I was standing by to change it at the end, since the major difference of any online dynamic encyclopedia is to be as current and fresh aspossible. That, in particular, the fear of not having an any time current content, is deeply planted into the hearts of all readers of all encyclopaedias, and so am I trying to remove it as regarding wikipedia- makrisj

I do see your point about being on hand to update it, and let me first state that I appreciate that you planned it out accordingly. That shows that you are a thoughtful editor, and not a hit and run current events slapper.

As to whether or not your statement: the major difference of any online dynamic encyclopedia is to be as current and fresh as possible is true can be debated; to many of us the major difference is its comprehensive nature—that we are not limited by a specific number of print volumes as to what goes in here. Additionally, as it says in WP:NOT, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. In my view, placing a current eclipse—something that occurs on a semi-regular basis—in the lede is giving it undue emphasis. This is not to say that your edits were egregious errors; indeed, I know that a great many editors, if not a majority, might agree with your instincts. I simply happen to see it the way I have just explained it. I would be happy to discuss the matter further. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion of my recent edit to WP:Lead section

Summarizing this reversion, you said, "I'm sorry, but I can't see how that addition wasn't redundant."

Without the information eliminated by the reversion, I don't see information in the article on the Wikipedia:Accessibility ordering guidelines for lead section items (Disambiguation links, Maintenance tags, Images, Introductory text, and Navigational boxes other than Maintenance tags). Did I miss that information in the article? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I am totally unfamiliar with WP:ACCESS. I've looked at the page, but I must confess, I am confused when trying to compare your concerns with the guideline. Please be patient with me and explain to me what this is about. My thinking, when doing the edit, was that the first paragraph "of the introductory text" is the first paragraph of the whole article, ergo, it is redundant to refer to it as the first paragraph of the introductory text. Perhaps you understood my thinking, but you nonetheless see a problem. How does my edit interfere with "accessiblity"? I am really lost. Unschool (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, and for responding on your own talk page. I don't get into many user_talk discussions, but the business about bouncing back and forth between the talk pages of the users involved always seems clumsy to me.

Like you, I was unfamiliar with WP:ACCESS until I came across a reference to it somewhere in the course of pursuing something else. I took a look, and concluded that it made important points re lead article sections. I then looked at WP:LEDE and, as far as I could see, these important points were not reflected there—hence my edit which you reverted. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still lost, so let's take this one step at a time. First tell me this: As you see it, what is the purpose of WP:ACCESS? Unschool (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As it says, "this is primarily intended to assist those with disabilities, ...". I think its purpose is to lay down guidelines which would enable disabled persons (probably mainly focusing on vision-impaired persons using aids such as magnifiers, text-to-speech converters, etc.). The idea I take from ACCESS is that compliant WP articles read more easily for such persons non-compliant articles. With regard to ordering of elements in the lead section, compliant lead sections with the elements familiarly ordered are probably easier to deal with than lead sections with elements in an unexpected ordering.

I am currently busy with other stuff and don't want to spend a lot of time discussing this. I'll leave it up to you to decide what to do about the revert. Leave the changes out, put them back in, rewrite them, whatever you see fit. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly understand about your being busy. It appears that we read the purpose of ACCESS the same way. The difference is that I don't see how the edit difference between us affects the disabled. I'll ask someone else before deciding what to do; I certainly don't want to make a decision based upon my potentially flawed understanding of what is going on. Thanks for your time. Unschool (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pree Ringz

Can you help me with this? I'm not a english native speaker (and this is not my home wiki), so if you think that this article should be eliminated, please let me know. Greetings, Slade (TheJoker) 00:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I can't imagine why you would ask a middle-aged fart like me about an article like this. Given your name (The Joker), I suppose you might just be having some fun with me. But I will assume good faith and give you a sincere answer. But first let me tell you something to explain where I stand on this. When I am doing Recent Change patrolling, looking for vandalism to instantly revert, I frequently come across articles that are about rap artists or rap albums. I almost never touch them, even if they look like garbage to me, because I know that I don't know enough about that part of culture to really have an informed opinion. I just don't know what is notable nor what is plausible, in the world of hip-hop and rap. Having said that, I will nonetheless give you my opinion about the article:

It is very poorly written, from a standpoint of standard American English. While I do know what "diss" means, it is probably not the best verb choice for an encyclopedia. Additionally, phrases like "just to name a few", and "he was intending to diss Soulja Boy for taking stabs at him" just come across as far too informal for an encyclopedia. Also, there is an overabundance of redlinks; one or two might be okay, but this brings the whole article's noteworthiness into question, unfair as that might seem to be. Finally, if this is something that was just released yesterday, and released on a website, there are probably some issues re WP:N, though I could be wrong—perhaps this practice has already been established. So on the whole, my inclination would be to warn the creator of the article that I thought that the article in its current state should be improved over the next few days, or else it might face the possiblity of having to undergo an AfD. But that's just my opinion. I hope that this helped you in some way. Unschool (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I use this nickname because User:Slade is already registered. I am a sysop at pt: and I don't know how to put a page for deletion... maybe {{delete}} or {{garbage}}? At pt: we have pt:template:er1 and pt:WP:PE; I will follow your advice and I'll resume me to revert obvious vandalisms. Thanks anyway, Slade (TheJoker) 03:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I wasn't able to help more. Unschool (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, certainly you helped. Slade (TheJoker) 14:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

edit summaries

Howdy. I realize it was probably a joke, but could you please refrain from edit summaries like these on possibly contentious articles. The caption change was not a political statement, and your change was an improvement, but dry humor does not translate well, and I don't want people to think the caption change was a POV issue. I was the author of the original caption. --David Shankbone 04:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the part of the world we are dealing with, your observation is quite wise. I appreciate the advice, accept the admonishment, and shall try to be more sensitive in the future. Thanks for your comments. Unschool (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cooleemee

Hi Unschool, I answered your and David's comment at User_talk:DGG#Historic House and also started a discussion on the article's talk page. Please let me know (on the article talk or at David's page - I won't be watching here) if you have any questions. TravellingCari 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR Question

No, we are not in danger of being blocked. 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, such as that IP user continually adding incorrect sources. If you see stuff like that, you can use one of these warnings to get the user blocked quicker. Yes, as you can see, s/he is blocked for 12 hours, for violating rules. 3RR would apply, for example, if I put the population of the US is 300 million, and you put no, it is 310 million, and we keep reverting edits like that, for example. Any non vandalism dispute like that would violate 3RR. If you have any more questions, on anything, feel free to ask! Ctjf83Talk 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the user - if he continues, I will semi-protect the page. Thanks for letting me know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack

I would say you calling me an "anon" is a personal attack... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.96.55 (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if you're watching my talk

but I answered you :) TravellingCari 03:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unschooling

Hey, I think you're doing a great job on unschooling, so I just thought I'd let you know. I'm associated with unschooling myself, and I think it's great someone who knows it's background is contributing to the article here. When I've got some time I'll help wikify it and convert all the citations into citation templates. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 08:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm probably going to be too busy for a while to get back to it, but that is my long-range plan. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

2020 Summer Olympics

Thanks for your comments. I believe that my references are now in order. Am fairly new to Wiki and thus on somewhat of a learning curve. Any further feedback would be welcomed. Cwawebber (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's much better. Thanks for taking the time to get it right. Unschool (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

THE ZAPATISTA PARTY WILL BE ON YOU!

The Zapatista Party will be arresting you! Put my edits back or else! --202.67.101.170 (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

MEXICAN PRIDE!

Yo

you suggested that i get an ID. here it is, man.

thanks for your 'thanks' about my posting on Lt.Gov.Herbert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GatorNation31 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Cheers! Unschool (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternative education userbox

To show you, I went ahead and made the changes to User:Unschool/AltEdUserbox. I only added a black border around the box and made it so anyone who uses the box will automatically be placed in Category:WikiProject Alternative education members. Feel free to removed the changes or ask me to if you don't want them. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I heartily approve of everything that you've done, despite my complete lack of understanding of how you did it. Thanks! Unschool (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply - User talk:SMC

Hi there. I can't actually work out why I reverted that edit; I think that rollback may have actually been intended for another article on the recent changes list in Huggle. I can assure you that I had no personal interests in reverting that article, and I made a quite embarrassing mistake killing around 19 good edits (spellcheck edits among them). I've done a self-revert to take it back to what the user's edit was and removed the vandal template from that user's talk page. Even if I had intended on reverting that one edit, I wouldn't have reverted 19 of them outright, so I must have made a very severe error. Thanks for pointing it out to me; I've caught a few of my mistakes too and done self-reverts, but this one slipped through the net (must've been a very big hole in the net!). Cheers. SMC (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Beta Omicron Iota

Articles that are constantly recreated can be salted, effectively protecting the article from creation. As this article had only been deleted once previously, before this particular AfD took place, I didn't see the need for such preventative measures. -- Longhair\^talk 05:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Unschool (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferras

My update of the Ferras page was completely legitimate. I'm not entirely up on Wikipedia format, but I cited a legitimate gay website interviewing the singer with several references to his being gay. The citation was not bogus. The information was not vandalism. Establishing his sexuality is not unconstructive. It's part of the singer's personal life and should be recognized just like any other entry on a gay musician. --97.101.1.246 (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I have reviewed your edit and your source, and you are correct, all is legitimate.

When reverting vandalism—which occurs at an incredibly rapid rate—those of us fighting the fight have to make rapid decisions. My decision was made taking the following into consideration:

• You are an anonymous editor. Anons are far more likely to be the source of vandalism.
• Your comment, while it may have been intentionally pithy, also had an unfortunate resemblance to many vandals' insertions. It appeared to be clumsy and looked like it was just an attack on a public figure. Writing it in a smoother style might have made it less vulnerable to suspicion.

Having said that, my actions were nonetheless inexcusable. Unlike most vandals, you did include a source, which I overlooked, and which I should have seen and checked up on, before making the revert. Again, my apologies. Unschool (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't complain honestly if that sentence was edited in further detail, but the only thing established by that interview (and another I found debating the validity of my source) really is that he's gay and single. Thank you for reverting back - I feel like it's important to have there, but the lonely sentence is blunt and my unregistered status (I usually only edit entries on the fly if I find new information and that's somewhat rare) could scream "vandal." Ultimately, no problem. Thanks again! --97.101.1.246 (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You haven't edited in a few days

I haven't seen you around in a few days and was just wondering if everything was allright? My main concern was that the last comment you posted on Talk:Abraham Lincoln was a misunderstanding. I left an apology and an explanation on the talk page but you never continued the discussion. I just wanted to point out that I typed in WP:ASF. It was not WP:AGF. They do look similar and I apologize again. I was never trying to accuse you of incivility. In fact I would like to take the opportunity to say just the opposite. You have been ever so much civil in all of our dealings together. I know that many editors are not civil in their discussions with other editors. I keep the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and sometimes follow the discussions. I have seen just about everything possible in ways of incivility, so again thanks for the complement from before. Hopefully you will get a chance to check out the link on WP:ASF and see where I was trying to go with that argument. Also check out WP:MORALIZE and WP:SUBSTANTIATE. All three of these fall under the corp policy of NPOV. I hope to see you again soon and hurry back.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oy; my absence had nothing to do with anything said by you or anyone else. I've been working a lot of extra hours and the little time I've had left (measurable in minutes) I've owed to my family. No worries.

Oh, you are correct, I did misread that. I'll have to read up on WP:ASF and let you know what I think. I may be able to do it tonight, but I'm not sure.

I appreciate the comments on civility. The feeling is mutual. Unschool (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

E.O. Smith and school levels

You said: "(→Feeder patterns: We already know--despite its name--that it is a middle school, because it is included in the middle school listing)" Actually its name is appropriate as it has BOTH middle and elementary levels. What I tried to make clear is that the elementary boundary does not feed into Reagan but that the middle boundary does. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Whisper, for clarifying your intent. Please understand how this looked to a non-resident of the area. Originally, the sentence read:

Middle schools feeding into Reagan include Gregory-Lincoln Education Center, Alexander Hamilton, Hogg, and E. O. Smith Education Center (middle school).

After my edit, it read:

Middle schools feeding into Reagan include Gregory-Lincoln Education Center, Alexander Hamilton, Hogg, and E. O. Smith Education Center.

To someone unfamiliar with the schools, the only difference between these sentences is what appears to be a totally superfluous parenthetical repetition of the term "middle school". We were already told that EOSEC is a middle school at the beginning of the sentence; why repeat the fact?

But now I realize that the inclusion of this fact has to do with EOSEC being more than just a middle school. But I only know this because of your message here on my talk page; it is completely unknowable from the article on JHRHS as it was, and is, written. I would encourage you, if you deem this fact to be significant, to clarify it in the article. Just understand that the previous version did not accomplish what appears to be your goal. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Another Barnstar for you!

		Civility Award
		Thank you for being civil with me over my screwup when tried to fix some vandalism and instead reverted it from your good revert to the vandals version, and the thing on my user talk page. I should know better than to edit when I'm tired. Don't worry! I'm not using popups any more! W8TVI (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I hope you don't mind me copying your user page layout for use in my own. You have good ideas! Thank-you! W8TVI (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Unschool (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: False accusation

No prob! I really tend to get dyslexic (well, I'm not dyslexic, but...) when reverting, and sometimes my eyes switch the diffs. I thight the bad diff was the current diff and I reverted. No apologies needed. ;-) Jonathan (talk • contribs • am I wrong?) 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL

I realized I had made a mistake in the revert but I lost track of the page in Huggle. I'll try to be more careful in the future. -Vcelloho (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Mikumi Pano

Thanks for the commendation about the Mikumi Panorama. I have one other FP, a photograph of a flower which was promoted roughly a year ago. Regards Muhammad(talk) 13:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but....

the comment was not directed toward you, but to Arcayne. He used the phrase Dickish to refer to something you said, and I took offense to it since no editor should ever attack another. I was just trying to remind him that he needs to be a bit more civil. Sorry if it came off as directed toward you.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I realized that the comment was directed at him but I thought it was about me. I'm still going to stay off the page for now; nothing good can come of me trying to discuss it with someone who is either angry at me or doubts my good faith or just is disinterested in alternate points of view. Thanks again. Unschool (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You needn't do that, Unschool. I agree that I tend to become less patient with folk who don't seem to understand what I am saying, which isn't fair, because I am not the Great Communicator, and often, my intent is misunderstood. I am sorry if I misinterpreted your comments. Often, when someone suggests something negative couldn't be the case, they are often straw-manning that very opinion: "surely, just because you hang out with kids doesn't make you a pedophile". As there actually are folk in the wiki who consider this behavior beyond clever, I perhaps presumed that you were one of them; clearly, you meant no offense, and again, I apologize.

Either way, don't worry about me getting pissed off. I might pop my cork a little, but I cool down very quickly, and am often quite easy to work with. I am sorry if my occasionally thin skin scared you away a little bit.

And I didn't even see the comment that Jojhutton put into the text, neatly "hidden" as it was. The best place to put that would have been on my talk page, so we could have ironed out the problem. Opportunity lost. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words, and consider the matter forgotten. Like I said, when I read my words, I could see how they could be taken as litotes. After I'm done with the little project I'm doing now I'll take a look at the page and see if I have any substantive to add; if I don't say something in the next hour and a half, it won't be because I'm upset, but simply because I recognize that I've shot my wad. Again, thanks, and look forward to talking with you again. Unschool (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for graciously accepting my apology, and gently pointing out a new word I completely missed in 17 years of education. I've always said that if you don't learn something new every day you work in Wikipedia, you've wasted that day. Thanks for making sure my day was not wasted. Yay me! :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:The Butterfly Effect

Hello, and I appreciate your comment about my edit. Honestly, I already have a username. I haven't logged into it in a while because I'm contemplating whether or not I want to keep editing this. Concerning those edits, I'm highly confident the individuals who reverted my edits in the past used the fact I've edited from a IP to help solidify the idea that I am merely vandalising rather than making a helpful contribution because one person in particular, Captain Infinity, is trying to use whatever ploy he can to stop me from "butchering the article." There are actually 2 extensive discussions on the discussion page, but some if not just one user wishes to ignore it. For the record, I've confirmed that I am indeed Klptyzm on the discussion page as well, if you've had doubts. 144.96.26.167 (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

re: warning to User talk:24.13.59.140

Greetings Unschool!

I just noticed that you gave a warning on vandalism to this anon. I bust my share of vandals, but I had a hard time seeing why this edit to John McDonough (sports executive) constitutes vandalism. I had to scratch my head a moment and think about the proper punctuation for a moment. I checked the contribution history, and there is no sign of previous vandalism. There does not appear to be any pattern of such in the article's history. I'm not here to tell you what to do, but I would at least maybe think about rescinding that warning. Have a good evening! LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've made my share of mistakes, but I'm not sure that this was one of them. First of all, the aforementioned edit introduced a spelling error—removing the "k" from "Blackhawks", the name of the team. So it needed to be reverted. Now was it vandalism? Well, I'll be the first to say that vandalism exists only where it is present, not only in the edit, but in the heart of the editor. So perhaps the error was unintentional. At the time, I didn't see how it could be unintentional—it looked exactly like a classic single-character-switch that so many vandals use to introduce minor errors into Wikipedia. But I suppose it's possible that what he was trying to do was to insert an apostrophe to indicate the possessive usage of Blackhawks, but accidentally cut out the k when inserting the apostrophe. Possible, yes, but unlikely, methinks, given that the "k" and the apostrophe are not directly next to one another.

All this brings up another issue. Should there be an apostrophe there at all? In my opinion, the issue is very ambiguous, and I leave it to the grammarians to decide. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

First the brain, then the eyes: I saw the apostrophe, and never saw the missing "k". I am mistaken on that ... had I actually noticed that like you did, I would have called that vandalism too. I am mistaken, and apologize for the above, which I redact, except for the having a good evening part.

No apologies necessary. All I ask is the assumption of good faith, which you provided in spades. Unschool (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

October 2007 activity - thanks for asking

LOL, that was really a function of using VandalProof for vandalism control rather than real editing. I got a little "excited" about the program at that point. My professional career allows for a flexible schedule, but I obviously had more time on my hands than normal. Another way of think about it is that I am a very boring person without any social life. Wikipedia is a personally addictive hobby where I now try to be a little more in control to please my wife. Thanks for asking, Cheers--^StormRider 17:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

To create an account or not?

Hi, I am not a registered editor so all of my edits and discussions are marked using my IP address. I have contributed seriously in the past from three different IP address (this is one of them), luckily I know what they are/were. You posted on the talk page of the IP address from which I usually contribute (86.9.201.247) about why don't I register. My main issue is a kind of anonymity. I believe that the value and merit of contributions to wikipedia should be judged on the basis of each individual contribution, and not because of how frequently or infrequently I contribute, or any wikipedia online persona that I develop. Having said that, wikipedia tracks all contributions from each of my IP addresses anyway for all to see together if anyone cares to. Still, the IP number is presumably not recognizable to other editors unless they are looking out for me.

Having said that, it might be nice to tie together all of my contributions under one label. If I create an account, can I collect under it all of the contributions I have already made using the three different IP addresses? Will the signatures made using four tildes on discussion pages all automatically change to my new label? Will the IP addresses on the Revision History pages also change to my new label? Can I change my label to something else later, once I have created an account? Thanks in advance for your answers. 128.232.110.231 (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I am certainly not the best person to ask about this; I am simply not very knowledgeable about such things. But I will do my best to answer your questions.

• If I create an account, can I collect under it all of the contributions I have already made using the three different IP addresses? Wow, I don't know for sure, but I think that this would not happen automatically. I mean, if they're not too numerous, perhaps you could go back to your contributions and add your quadratilde after them and have them labeled belatedly. But before doing that, I'd find someone else more knowledgeable to ask if that would be considered proper ettiquette or not.
• Will the signatures made using four tildes on discussion pages all automatically change to my new label? Per my previous comment, I'm 99% certain that they would not.
• Will the IP addresses on the Revision History pages also change to my new label? Again, I think not.
• Can I change my label to something else later, once I have created an account? Yes, you can. AND if you do change your label/username to another name later on, your revision history WILL follow you, so that under the new name, you would get credit for the edits under a previous name.

I'm going to ask around and see if I'm wrong about your first issue--getting credit for your pre-registration contributions as an anon editor. I really doubt that it's possible, but if it is possible, then I'm sure it would take some administrative assistance to make it happen. Unschool (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I can save you some time; the short answer is - you cannot have them added to your current edit count.

That said, what an anon with a new account can do is to create a subpage and provide the links to all the diffs they provided as an anon. It's time consuming, but personally rewarding. I never thought to do that when I started, and I had about 50 edits before I created an account. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Barn star for you

		The Socratic Barnstar
		message Jojhutton (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

sorry Unschool, I had never given a barnstar before and was unware that I should have left a message. I just thought you needed one, because of your passion for improving articles.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Re; Section title

I changed it because discussion in articles are supposed to be about the subject of the article, not the editors in question. If I could impose upon you to instead remove the section to my usertalk page instead, I will respond to it here. I am tempted to simply ignore the section entirely otherwise. I don't respond to attacks at all well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. I do understand what you mean about it not being about editors, but rather about edits, but if you read through my comments, I think it is clear that I am asking—with precision—about specific edits. And I do not want to attack you. As it is, I don't see it as being anything but a legitimate discussion of the edits and editing choices that have been made. But I know that sometimes it is difficult, especially when we are close to a subject, to separate sincere disagreement from attack. If you can find another editor who feels that my post constitutes an attack (and I don't care if you canvass your best friends) then I will acknowledge that I, too, am too close to judge this, and I will remove the new section to another venue. Is that reasonable? Unschool (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Whaling

The removal of the whaling section was not vandalism. I do not see how it warrants inclusion as neither of the articles support the position and make it misleading. I have further explained this position in the discussion section. [unsigned comment 06:42, November 16, 2008 by IP121.215.157.160]

Thats cool. Thanks buddy, I really have to create an account and read/follow guidelines and observe good edits so I can make better contributions in the future. I am an engineering and science major in the area of renewable energy and environmental science and have noticed some of the entries could really do with some fleshing out so I better get a far greater grasp of wikipedias guidelines and mechanics if I want to contribute. I realise now that originally I might not have gone about the edit in the right way, so the situation really alerted me to that fact. Thanks again for being reasonable about my noobishness and sorry about any confusion!

No worries; you're doing okay. I hope to see you become a regular contributor. One quick favor I ask of you. Whenever you leave comments on a talk page, follow them with four consecutive tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you do this, it leaves your signature, and makes it easier for the rest of us to know just who is talking to us. Happy editing! Unschool (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

JWB

Thanks for your kind remarks on my Talk page. Have a cup of coffee on me!  JGHowes  ^talk 15:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Return Munch!

Andrew Kelly (talk) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug ^{(Thanks very much, but I'll pass on the hug).} for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

I don't usually hug folks I don't know either. I didn't know that's what the template said! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of 2008 prez election

I have nominated 2008 prez election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I was completely unfamiliar with the RfD process until I got this post fro you. I have now read this guideline, but I am still at a loss to understand why this matters. I cannot see the harm created by this redirect. Could you explain further? Unschool (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I was simply going through some of the redirects, and it didn't seem like a typo to me. Policy seemed to be on the side of keeping likely redirects. I didn't mean to cause offense, and I feel a bit bad now; if you would like to participate at the redirects page discussion, I personally encourage that, as it may affect the outcome. Your argument seems like a good one to me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not sure how I feel about this stuff. Unschool (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Habitat

Looks fine. Frankly, my concern was wit the linkspam, which you have taken care of. Nice job on the article. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare) _]} 05:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Unschool (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Very nice job on the article. Thank you. htom (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It got put on my watchlist from the snarky comment I left on its talk page, and I noticed that you had added a section, so I looked, and was impressed. htom (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much. (Can't believe that I failed to look back at the talk page before asking you about it.) See you around. Unschool 06:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: wt:rfa

Hello there, Unschool! Today's your lucky day, because you have new messages at L'Aquatique's talk page. Creepy grinning smilie You can remove this notice at any time by removing this template.

Camp Lone Star

LOL, do you have Camp Lone Star on your watch list or something? It's a fucking stub. Why do you even give a shit? _{(comment from anon editor 98.200.175.214; I have moved it to this section)}

I had never even heard of Camp Lone Star before tonight; I just came across it and it seemed unlikely to be set up the way the article read at the time; I looked into the matter, and realized you had vandalized it, so I reverted it. Do I care about that article? Not particularly. But what is important to me is that this encyclopedia as a whole be as accurate as possible for the people who are looking for information. Unschool 07:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I only did it for teh lulz. I won't do it again. As much fun as Encyclopedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia are, I need Wikipedia for school. Feel free to drop by Camp Lone Star if you feel like singing over 9000 corny praise songs, talking about the 5000-year-old Earth um... theory, and participating in random, cliche "character-building" activities like orienteering. They also steal your money.

Thanks for including the links; I can guarantee you that I never would have understood what "teh lulz" meant if you had not. Personally, I would enjoy debating someone who was ostensibly educated about the "5000 year old earth". I don't begrudge anyone their right to their faith, but I do object to their use of their own set of "facts". But orienteering? Sorry to disagree with you, partner, but I love orienteering. Only thing is, I prefer doing it on my own—I'm holding the compass and I don't want you to get in my way. Unschool 07:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Joy

 Marlith (Talk)  has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

 Marlith (Talk)  04:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Parents

I hate my parents. :'( 118.101.38.238 (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. But your feelings about them have no place in an encyclopedia. Unschool 09:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I know, sorry. :'( Wikipedian 09:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Thanks

No problem. Just like you, I'm trying to get rid of vandalism. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:United States political leader templates

There is some discussion of the format of templates in Category:United States political leader templates such as {{U.S. State Secretaries of State}} going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#State_by_state_100.2C000_population_city_and_mayors_templates. Feel free to discuss.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edit of Secretaries of State

You undid an edit that clarified that not only states but also territories had Secretaries of State that are first in line of succession and gave one example. Undoing that edit, the article now only makes reference to states, even though territories also have a similar situation. The edit did not offer a SECOND example, only ONE in reference to territories. I would suggest you take another look at your undoing of the edit which drew my attention since it refers to US territories and Puerto Rico---restoring the edit would make it clerar that there are two different types of jurisdictions, one example of each. Pr4ever (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. I really don't think this is a big deal, but I think I see your point. Let me explain my thinking: First, I removed Puerto Rico because I did (and still do) tend to think that a single example is usually best (I have seen many articles over the years where everyone wants to include their personal favorite example, ruining a sentence). Second, I removed "territories" because it is an inaccurate term—Puerto Rico is not a "territory". Still, I am willing to cover all bases, provided we can find the proper wording. My first choice would be to find an all-encompassing word to replace both "states" and "territories". For example, the first thing that came to my mind was:

In those jurisdictions with no Lieutenant Governor . . . the Secretary of State is sometimes first in the line of succession in the event of a gubernatorial vacancy.

I would go straight to this version if I was confident that "jurisdiction" were an appropriate word for this, but I am not sure it is. I think of "jurisdictions" as referring only to the authority of courts and law enforcement officials. Can you think of another word that would replace both "states" and "territories"? Unschool 18:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My impulse is "sovereignties" but I'm not sure that admistrative things that are neither states nor countries are a member of that group. Maybe "governments"? htom (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Sovereignties, definately not. "Governments" does technically appear correct, but it also appears very clumsy. I'm going to transfer this discussion to Talk:Secretary of State (U.S. state government); maybe we can get some more ideas there. Unschool 03:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Pumphrey

All I know of Pumphrey is that he owned the stable near Ford's Theater where Booth kept his horse and would sometimes rent horses as well. He is a bit of a footnote in history and has no real interest to history other than what I have already mentioned. As to the editor, I've come across him several times in the past and he seems to be one of those Civil War article clean up types, very harmless as far as edits go. I hope that this helps you out. I can see why you might revert the edit as well, it would seem a bit odd, almost like he was adding his own name I think.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply the fact that you have independent knowledge of this 19th century Pumphrey is enough to put my mind at ease. Thanks. Unschool 03:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I can give you a few off-line references if you wish, but Pumphrey isn't one of those guys who gets written about too often. Like I said, he is only known for his association with Booth, and even then, he doesn't get mentioned too often. It was Pumphreys employee the night of the assassination, who gets most talked about most, because he chased Davy Harold to the bridge before being turned back by the sentry on duty.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm good. Like I said, I have no problem taking your word for matters of fact. Thanks again. Unschool 18:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted comment

In this edit, you restored IP editor 71.175.219.211's deletion of his own comment with the edit summary why was this deleted?. Generally, there is no problem with an editor deleting his own question, at least before it spawns responses. Most likely, the editor realized the answer to his question and deleted it to save others time. TJRC (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. But because there had been an intervening edit, I did not realize that the anon was deleting his own question. Thanks for clearing that up; I was truly puzzled. Unschool 16:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)