User talk:Unschool/Archive 3

This is not a warning
It's a High-fiiiiive! -Taco325i 14:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

heh

 * language sounded like verbiage from a 1957 guidance department filmstrip

I think you are now in the early lead for "best edit summary of 2007." Cmprince 05:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Burr
I agree with your POV-notice on the Aaron Burr article. I have not been a contributor to this article and would like to thank you for bringing the fact that it needs work to my attention. I'll continue over the next few weeks in trying to improve the article. Just now, I've taken a swipe at improving the lead and would like your opinion. Thanks in advance. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stick around, chime in with your thoughts...or at least fix my glaring typos. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 19:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried, too
I got sucked out of retirement and once again got involved in this foreign character argument here. I find it really frustrating sometimes. I feel like i am beating my head against the wall with this. The only argument for diacritics is "It is spelt wrong!" God, that makes me frustrated because of the arrogance of it. Basically, they are saying that virtually all English publications are making spelling mistakes. What a laugh. We don't tell other languages how to spell things. Masterhatch 20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Unschool. As you may have seen at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format, another 'Diacritics' debate has ended, in stalemate. GoodDay 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

On Naming Conventions
¡Hola! It was not until yesterday when I read your comment on naming conventions at Wikipedia's proposed guidelines. I may have reacted too strongly to it and for that I'm sorry. I realize that that discussion page is just a mess and that it's hard for anyone to say anything coherent amidst all the opinions being expressed at the same time. I don't know if you're interested in knowing the other side of the issue, I assume you are though. I hope you don't mind me writting them here... it's just for you to know what those of us who want the naming conventions to start the process of allowing native spellings are all about. My purpose isn't to start a personal debate with you on this issue on our talk pages so you may respond to it if you want to but I will probably choose not to respond (don't take it personally please). Cheers!Rosa 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First, an encyclopaedia's purpose is to enlighten about subjects foreign to us, like foreign cultures and how they manifest themselves differently to our own culture, like through the use of a different language. Therefore, not using the native name constitutes a loss of information for all of us.


 * Second, it's an issue of respect. By its very own nature, an encyclopaedia values foreign cultures, that's why it's interested in knowing about them (when you don't value something there's no reason to study and research it). Part of having esteem for a foreing culture is to respect its people's native name and not change it because it's difficult for you to pronounce it. The perfect example for this is one of Mr. Mandela's childhood anecdotes on how a teacher at his school changed his name from "Rolihlahla" to "Nelson" in apartheid time in South Africa.


 * Third, it creates confussion unnecessarily. For example, wouldn't it be easier if all of us had to call the Deutsch language, people and their country by the same name? How come in English it is "German", in Spanish "Alemán" and in German "Deutsch"? Having to learn all of those variants is just a big waste of time and it makes it difficult for us to communicate with foreigners who as a rule are not (and shouldn't be) familiar with local terms.


 * Finally, this does not constitute a "revolution in language", it's standard practice in other languages like Spanish for example (e only use it as an example because it's the only other language I profoundly know about, not because I want the English language to adapt to the Spanish language). Until a generation ago the Spanish language "Hispanised" foreign names so we had for example Benito Espinoza and  Pepino el Breve (which was quite akward as "pepino" means "cucumber" in Spanish lol). This has changed since and now native spellings are recognized as  desirable spellings, even if the process of adapting all "Hispanised" words is painfully slow and there's  still a long, long, long way to go.  At the end though, it's inevitable, as we will be forced to be more and more in contact with foreign cultures in the near future. Adiós ;) Rosa 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Salt pan (evaporation)
While I have merged pages before, in this case the task is a bit daunting given the number of articles involved and my lack of expertise with the subject matter. The "process" (I assume you mean the merge process) involves merging the content by cutting and pasting, and eventually redirecting to the main article after a consensus develops on merging the pages. See Merging and moving pages for more information. Park3r 16:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

on the tragic deletion of 2000s content
Per one of my favorite essays, WP:RECENT, we shouldn't delete information on an article just because there is so much of it. How do I say this concisely?... Wikipedia has no place to aggregate content on the verifiable trends of this decade, and this is a great loss. I will add the content on to my personal page until I can find a place to put it. MPS 21:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly think the article should be reverted to as it was before, albeit with a lot of cleanup.--HisSpaceResearch 00:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I respect your feelings; if that was possible, then that would be the preferred option. But it had simply gotten beyond that point—it was no longer feasible, as many other editors have learned through their failed attempts.  I've taken some comments that I originally made on another user's talk page and posted them on the 2000s talk page.  Let me know your thoughts.  Thanks.  Unschool 06:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, well I have added the categories and 'in other languages' sidebar links that you removed, but otherwise the article remains free of the masses of information. I have posted some comments on the talk page but I think that even the lead section could use a serious rewrite.--HisSpaceResearch 16:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I may keep working on it. Maybe. By the way, I left a note for Unschool on the talk page of that article, if you haven't seen it. =) Goyston talk, contribs, play 19:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Another note on the talk page, by the way. Goyston talk, contribs, play 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Message from Starfleet
From Starfleet7 : My apologies, but I do not see where I can send you a message other than this. Most of you folk have a button at the top that says "send me a message". In any case. Thank you for saying "kudos" to me in February 2007 about adding all of the Westside neighborhoods to the Jacksonville Florida "neighborhoods" section. My apologies for reversing Riverside & Avondale. funny how you look at things so many times, & you don't see an error staring you in the face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfleet7 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 April 2007

Um, huh?
Your accusations are false. I checked my history and I find no such message. In fact, there is no prior message from your user name at all. Anyway, this is not a controversial topic. It's an article about a football owner. And this information is not that difficult to find. If you were so worried about it, you would have checked it out for yourself. Oh look what I found on the Jags on website: the information you are looking for. Check it out:. If you would have left a post before, it would have been responded to promptly. However, since you failed to comment, I could not respond. I always like to deal with fellow editors in a civil manner, but I do not like to be criticized for something I did not do. If I would have made a mistake, I would have owned up to it. But since you didn't leave me a message asking for a citation in the first place, I didn't have an idea that you wanted me to provide you with one. So before you act like I'm trying to do you wrong and trick the world about such a boring topic as an NFL owner, double check your own actions first. Mr. Vitale 01:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Communication skills are a two-way street. Kindly re-read my comments and, presuming that you are reasonably intelligent, you will find that there is nothing false in my comments left (and already deleted) on your discussion page.


 * I never claimed to have left you personally a message on your discussion page. That wasn't even intimated in my comments.  I said the following:
 * I have deleted your statement about Wayne Weaver running SteinMart. Did you, User:VitaleBaby, in fact place such a statment?  Yes:  On 18 March 2007, at 06:58 GMT, you added the following statement to the article on Wayne Weaver:
 * He is currently the chairman of discount department store Stein Mart.
 * I stated on your website, "I asked for some documentation about four weeks ago regarding the above point. Did I, in fact, do so?  Yes:  On the same date as you added the above statement, believing it to be mistaken, I added the  tag, indicating a need for documentation, and added the edit summary: I will delete in a couple of days if there is no cite for what I am 80% certain is bs.
 * I then stated on your talk page, "you deleted the request for a citation". Now, if you were to have never revisited this page, I could understand it if you never added a citation.  Most of us randomly hit pages that never go on our respective watchlists, and might never see requests for corrections.  But hey, that wasn't the case here.  Did you in fact delete the above request for citation?  Yes:  On 21 March 2007, at 02:19 GMT, you returned to the page.  You added some more information, but also deleted the request for documentation of your SteinMart statement.


 * So the point is, I have stated nothing that is false. You did place a statement in an article—controversial or not is irrelevant, in my view—which a fellow editor questioned, then you did delete the citation tag on that statement, which makes it look as if you were trying to cover up your attempt at placing false information.  If you want to challenge me on my facts, then, buddy, let's do it.  I'll never be an admin, but I know plenty that'll be happy to take you on if that's what you enjoy doing.  Your tone certainly indicates that that's where you get your kicks—fighting without so much as reviewing the facts.


 * Speaking of facts, buddy, look again at that Jags website citation you provided. Now I'll tell you what.  I'm going to assume that you're a 14-year old kid who hasn't yet had his first economics class, and give you the benefit of the doubt—which is to say, that you are ignorant of what you were reading and citing.  The Jags website says, " Weaver . . . serves on the boards of Stein Mart, the Jacksonville Zoo and the Alliance for World Class Education."  You see, VBaby, rich and powerful men often serve on dozens of corporate boards, but their role as such is largely confined to appearing on the letterhead of said corporations.  That is a far, far different role than serving as the chairman of such boards, which is what you claimed, and which I questioned.


 * You know, I've spent a few minutes reviewing your personal Wikipedian history that you appear to want to hide—you know, by persistently and immediately deleting the comments and warnings that appear on your talk page. Your claim to wish to do so to remain "organized" might be plausible if it were not also so self-serving.  If you want to be seen as someone who exercises good faith, then I would suggest doing any of the following:  a) leave others' comments on your user page, and archive them if they get too long.  If you are really an organization or neat freak, then learn to create an organized set of archives, and leave links to the same on your talk page; or, b) use edit summaries—I actually sympathized with your rather vehement statement about not wanting to be singled out for not using edit summaries.  That's a fair point.  The fact is, all of us forget (or choose not) to use them at times.  But they are helpful, they are courteous, they do help to avoid conflict, they do at least give the impression that you aren't a shyster, and yet, you virtuaally never use them; or, c) watch your tone.  I've calmed down a lot since I started writing this, but I started out pretty hot.  The main reason was the combination of your arrogant tone and your refusal to be accountable (as demonstrated by your talk page practice and lack of edit summaries), and of course, the fact that you were patently wrong on every point of contention.   Now look, if you took that tone but I could see that you were a respectful Wikipedian who was not trying to hide his history, then I would have greeted you as a fellow traveler—hell, I've been as arrogant as the worst of them.  But I also recognize that all institutions have mores that help grease the skids, and if I'm going to violate one of them (e.g., being rather unkind in my commentary), that I should at least demonstrate with some of my other practices that I'm not a total misanthropist.  But you want to buck everything, and, in so doing, my friend, you come across as something of an asshole.


 * Now you might say that I don't know you, that your body of work speaks for itself. That's likely true.  But you have chosen to practice behaviours that make it more difficult to get to know your body of work.


 * Look, I'm going to drop this here, because an old man running down a young kid who is trying to contribute something to this project is probably coming across as an asshole as well. But I do hope that you'll reconsider what you are doing, simply so that—if you really are a serious contributor and not a vandal—that others will be able to see that.  Good day. Unschool 03:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What a lovely rant you left me. Thanks for bitching.  Anyway, I do not check for comments on anything but my own personal page.  As for deleting where it said citation needed, you imply that it was done malitiously.  Actually, its quite clear that it was inadvertanly deleted when I was correcting a mistake about his birthplace.  And I see that he is not the chairman of the board, but that is a mistake that can be corrected.  Why didn't you look it up yourself?  If I find something on here I think is wrong, that's what I do.  However, he is on the board of directors, and that is a signficant fact, regardless of my prior mistake.


 * It is nonsensical to say that I am not a reliable editor. I have created numerous pages, especially on political subjects, and have expanded many stubs. I will never say that I have not made a mistake in editing. Indeed, I am far from perfect. However, calling me a vandal is rather ludicrous. Show me where I have done anything of the sort. While I am in the minority on my beliefs, I believe that my user page is my personal space.  As long as I am not totally lax on repsonding to posters, I should be able to deal with it in my own way.  I understand your view on archival, but I feel no need for that.  If anyone whats to look at my past record, they can easily peruse through the history.


 * You do not need to insult my intelligence. That's just taking things to far. But since you charactarized me as a fool, I think it'd be for the better if you knew I was far from it. I am 24 years old, hold a master's degree in political science, and work for the state government of Pennsylvania. So while you are clearly older than me and obviously assume that you are wiser as well, I do not need to be spoken to as if I am an obnoxious teenager. I've been in disputes over utter stupidity before, but this one has to be the most ridiculous.Mr. Vitale 19:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A side note: I am not an arrogant asshole, but I am passionate and take what I do seriously. Therefore, I am not so good with criticism, and the above message will sound like the work of a hotheaded jack-ass to you.Mr. Vitale

2000s in American fashion has been nominated for deletion
2000s in American fashion has been nominated for deletion. Please feel free to voice your opinion.--Loodog 00:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Linda Chavez
I actually have no thoughts on the merit of the edit in question, it was made by a sockpuppet of a banned editor and can be automatically reverted per WP:BAN. The editor in question is a prolific sockpuppeteer as you can see here, so reverting his edits is the only way to try and make him get the hint that he isn't supposed to be editing Wikipedia. The IP is New York based (as is the banned editor, who uses a wide array of public computers as you can see by his sockpuppet category) and made the same edit to the Mark Schillinger as two of his previous sockpuppets, which is more than enough evidence to satisfy me it's a sockpuppet of the editor in question. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. I shall go ahead, then, and replace the statment.  Thanks for the explanation. Unschool 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

ISU & STD
Thank you! Even in the midst of a revert war over United States Declaration of Independence, I was still able to maintain some semblance of a sense of humor. :) Wahkeenah 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Hello I noticed a user vandalized your South Dakota page. You placed a protection tag on it. Could I ask you to do the same for Michigan? The same person did it there. We have been having so many trolls and vandalizm problems I can't stand it. I looked over the policy, I think Semi-protection would be great. Thanks for any help! Strunke 05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A couple of points. 1) I don't consider it my South Dakota page; I've only had a passing interest in it for a couple of days. 2) I didn't really protect the page.  I'm not an admin, and my placement of that tag on the page does nothing.  It was a bluff, which I hope (probably in vain) will scare off a few vandals.


 * Good luck with getting your page protected! Unschool 05:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, well thanks thanks anyway. I really just wish these people would get a life. Strunke 19:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Unschool - thanks for teaching me an important and valuable lesson concerning the discussion page! I simply had no idea about the etiquette until you came to my rescue - much appreciated boss. * bows down with hands clasped as though in prayer *

I think that if you keep teaching the new and uninformed about wiki "form" (I think that that was your word) then things can only improve around here.

I am sorry that I put you to trouble.

Please may I make one honest suggestion though: bear in mind that some people writing on Wikipedia (eg myself) are quite young and you need to be careful that you do not put people off by the manner in which you express your views. I am sure that I must have irritated you in some way but please just think before reacting.... Cheers and thanks again for your helpful comments! Dr Spam (MD) 11:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Millennium Tower (301 Mission Street)
Its a future building, and so needs to be on there. This warns the user/viewer that information on there should not be taken as canonical. Please do not remove tags without properly explaining why. Cheers, Jonomacdrones  (talk)  13:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't like tags, and essentially the basis for your argument is an essay you have read which sums this point up. This is your position? Forgive me for questioning your flawed judgement, as all judgements essentially are, but the use of this tag also adds it to the category of which it is a part of- meaning this: users who monitor this category will be able to see it right away to update if needs be. Whilst this may be a flawed argument (why not just add et al), this point adds to the fact that users must realise this is not a fully up-to-date article and it therefore, the tag acts as a sort of indemnity/exclusion clause- it means that readers should not take it as canon because it is subject to change- you may not like this point, but to some people this point needs to be stressed. In addition, the use of templates to help categorise/ help readers is generally accepted as policy- which is why your favourite essay is merely an essay, and not a policy. Forgive the latest of my reply. Cheers, Jonomacdrones  (talk)  20:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I must admit, if i am truly honest with you, tags are hideous for the most part, however they do play an important part. The current tag, however, is for current events, the connotations of which are events which are factoring in the news, or subject to immediate change/ unprecedented change. The 21st century, for instance, will end on Dec 31st 2099. Apologies for focussing on that particular point, i realise that isn't the thrust of your point, I just felt it needed saying. I will also agree that in the case of this article, the tag may be superfluous, but this article isn't generally representative of hypothetical articles; there are many which aren't so clear (forgive me for not finding a suitable example- this is just a quick message before i go out). Maybe my choice of words, ie: Canonical, weren't the best choice, I should have probably said that the tag makes the reader aware from the offset that it is probably not going to be fully correct and that other sources should be read to provide better information. I think, however, the major argument for tags/templates are that since there are many ways of making the reader aware that the article is partly theoretical/hypothetical, the use of standard tags make it more encyclopaedic as it keeps everything to a certain standard, that, and to go back to a prior point, it provides a quick and easy signal to editors that it may need updating. Although, like i say in theory i agree with you. Cheers, Jonomacdrones  (talk)  11:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- I must admit, i like the idea of top corner icons to replace tagging- lets put together a proposal/ essay and put it forward for consensus. Cheers, Jonomacdrones  (talk)  11:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Paradise Lost (Symphony X Album)
Uh I moved the tags to the top because that's where they are supposed to be, as ugly as they are. Even guidline pages have them, like Guide to layout. They are there to tell you what's wrong or what's going on. I didn't even see the tags until I scrolled to the bottom of the code for no reason and saw them there. The about to be released tag is at the top of EVERY album that is expected to be released. This should be no exception. It's to inform readers that it is yet to be released and that they should be more critical of the information that appears on the ppage because it is harder to verify. Anyways, just look at other pages; not user opinions. I don't actually have a definite answer so I won't move them back to the top, however once I find that answer and the Wikipedia guideline page that has it, they will be placed accordingly. --Notmyhandle 01:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Guideline pages having them are perfectly fine. The problem with tags, as the essay points out, is that they are self-referential.  Can you imagine reading Britannica and finding a comment at the top of an article that says, "This article could have been better written"?  Of course not.  But on pages that tell Wikipedian editors what to do, tags make sense.  Such tags do not detract from our professional appearance.


 * There is no policy that says that articles need tags. It has become convention.  But that convention started with an idea, and evolved into the ugly mess that we have now.  Fortunately, the tide is slowly beginning to turn, because of other ideas.  We now have small, unobtrusive protection tags available, such as seen on George W. Bush.  These were created by editors who recognized how foolish our tag system makes us look.


 * As to tags about upcoming albums (or bridges, or buildings, or elections), my feeling is that we should not treat our readers as morons. If an article starts of with the words, Paradise Lost is the yet-to-be released seventh studio album by progressive metal band Symphony X. Its release has been delayed numerous times since the announcement on November 16, 2005, that they were going to "Start pulling it all together", then I'm guessing that the reader is not so stupid that he won't realize that a) the album is not yet available, and b) the album may not yet have taken its final shape.  Do you know anybody so dense that they wouldn't realize that that's what those words mean?


 * The future tags are unnecessary because what they tell us can be and should be covered in the first sentence or two of the article. If you look in the 2007 World Book, it will have an article, I'm sure, on the Orion spacecraft that is being developed to take us back to the moon.  The fact that Orion will be completed in the future will be made clear in the writing, not in some silly "tag" at the top of the article: "This article is about a spacecraft that will fly in the future.  Information may change rapidly as . blah, blah, blah."


 * I place them at the bottom because I know that deleting them will appear to others to be vandalism, rather than my attempt to improve things. And in fact, it's too early to eliminate them; we need more small icons to be created.  What I'm doing is a stopgap measure. And I know that you're trying to uphold the convention, which is worthy of respect, and you have mine.  I ask you though to consider helping to make the project even better. Unschool 02:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Beautiful. You've changed my opinion.  So, what is are these minitags you mentioned about on the Bush page?  I can't find them, are they not visible at all? --Notmyhandle 03:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tag Sizing
Hi, sorry for my confusion re: the tag sizing issue. I've been away almost six months, and obviosly missed a few things. When I saw your initial edit, I totally overlooked the padlock icon in the corner. I assumed you were trying to do something desireable, but thought that there had been a technical glitch. I made several attempts (using Preview) to "get it right" by trying variations of "small=yes", but of course, I didn't get any better results. Finally I gave up and reverted back to the original. Even after your helpful Edit Summary when you reverted me, it took some looking to find the icon and understand what had happened. So now I have a question about which tags should be resized. Do we apply the "small" version to any and all tags in an article, or only at the top of the page? I'll be happy to help...this is a great idea and somewhat overdue, really. It would be most helpful if there were a specific page or guideline to refer to, or even an ongoing discussion. Can you provide any links to more info? Thanks in advance! Doc  Tropics  18:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Boy, I wish I had more information. I first was started thinking about this when I read tags, but while it was brilliantly written, it didn't really propose any action (still worth reading, though—check it out).  Well, apparently someone did take some action, and created the little sp tag that we are discussing.  It has, understandably enough, caught on, but I know of no place that it is actually spoken of in any guidelines.  (If you find a link, let me know.)  And, as far as I know, this sp tag is the only one currently in existence.  I saw somewhere that the creator of the sp tag has retired from wikipedia, but I think we also need such a tag for fully protected articles as well.  Good luck with your search for more info!  Unschool 18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I'll read through that, and start applying the size modifier when I see SP tags on pages. I think this could easily be applied to a number of tags that currently detract from the appearance of articles. If you wanted to generate some discussion on this topic, you could bring it up at Village pump (proposals), and if it gets support, then go to Village pump (technical) to see if some of our tech-savvy editors can provide more of them. Thanks again, and happy editing : ) Doc  Tropics  18:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of trends in music (2000-present)
I was about to tag this for deletion, when I noticed that you have been taking a chainsaw to the worst parts of this huge mess. (9K of drivel in 11 days is pretty admirable work!) Do you think the article is salvageable? I won't tag it if you are going to continue to fix it, but the PoV pushing there is pretty breathtaking. Horologium talk - contrib 03:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it fixible? [or is it fixable? I'm such a terrible speller]  No, I seriously don't think so.  But what I'm attempting to do is to decimate it to the point where someone—perhaps yourself—will take the time to destroy it once and for all.  You see, the kind of people who contribute to that crap article and others like it are the equivalent of grafitti artists writing on the wall of the stall.  Most of them never come back, and even if they did, they lack the attention span to see that their "contribution" is gone.  But unfortunately, there are editors out there who won't let you just delete articles like this without a huge fight.  I don't have the time (or stomach, truth be told) to fight over so inane an article.  (I will fight with great ferocity over articles that I think are important.)  So I've just been doing my thing, shredding it down, and will be content if it simply turns into a short, but acceptable article, and even happier if someone kills it off.  Do as you will, I'll be happy to support you either way.  Unschool 03:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have initiated the AfD on it. Articles for deletion/Timeline of trends in music (2000-present). Horologium talk - contrib 04:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I quoted you!
When you said ''Wow. I just copied and pasted this whole discussion onto a Word document. It was 114 pages long. This is really ridiculous, I thought it was hilarious, and accordingly quoted it in my Signpost'' article on the RfC located here: User:Phoenix2/Spoilers. Feel free to remove it if you so desire, even after publication. Thanks. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 00:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm honored to have been placed inside an attractive textbox. I'll be converting it into a PDF file before I have it laminated to mail to all my friends.  Thanks :-) Unschool 01:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 Georgia/Florida wildfires
Hi,

I undid your revert of 2007 Georgia/Florida wildfires.

The reason for my edit was:
 * The unit conversions were wrong.
 * The use of formats such as 'May 9th' broke date preferences.
 * There were excessive links to month articles.

Your comment implying that acres are not 'units familiar to Americans' is interesting because it could affect a lot of articles. I will not disagree and might even agree with you. I had previously thought that triple units was not generally good.

If you think square mile values are essential to support the acre values, that is fine by me. I was merely trying to correct the major defects in the article. I hope that explains things. Keep up the good work. Regards. Lightmouse 23:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Very sorry, it never occurred to me that the conversions might be wrong. And I do, in retrospect, agree with you on the excessive month links—I don't even think a single month link is needed in such an article.  Regarding date formats, I do not know Wiki policy, but I assume consistency, at least, is critical.
 * In short, my revert was not very well-thought out. I merely was concerned with the loss of old English units.  And while I do think that most of my countrymen have trouble actually visually both square miles and acres, they can do better with those than they can with square kilometers and hectares.
 * So I am content with your revert, and hope that somebody can do a proper conversion of the units sometime. I did a calculation at one point and determined the that area within Florida burned was equivalent to approximately half the area of Jacksonville, the largest city (by area) in the contiguous 48 states.  That's something that at least locals can relate to; it is/was a big fire. Unschool 01:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The date format issue relates to 'date preferences'. If you look at the top right of your screen you will see a setting for 'my preferences' (it is between 'my talk' and 'my contributions'). That leads you a page where you can set all sorts of preferences. It has a tab for 'Date and time' where you can choose to set the 'Date format' to 'May 9' or '9 May'. It will automatically convert dates in articles. Try setting the date preferences and see what happens.


 * Unfortunately the software that makes it happen was badly designed. The design error was to combine the date preference mechanism with the hyperlink mechanism. Thus you cannot make date preferences work without links. This has the unintended consequence of creating lots of links to full (month+day) dates. It also gives the false impression to editors that Wikipedia policy is to link all dates. This is why many editors mistakenly link partial dates (e.g. day only, month only, year only).


 * Furthermore, the software actually does harm in some cases such as 'May 9th'. Normally that is perfectly legitimate but not here on Wikipedia. This is because the linked date May 9th will be inverted and look like 9 Mayth . There have been occasionally attempts to redesign the date preference software but progress has ground to a halt.


 * Now to units of area. Regardless of the metric or non-metric system, units in 2-dimensions are difficult for ordinary people to imagine. Furthermore very large numbers of any unit become abstract. As you suggest, comparisons to a city size or a state are often useful to give an impression.


 * Incidentally, google is very good for conversions. Try doing a 'search' for '96 feet'. Regards Lightmouse 11:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Small Icon Advocacy
Hey Unschool, I made a working version of Template:Cleanup that allows the use of small a small icon instead of the giant box. You can see the source at Template:Notmyhandle/Sandbox and an example at User:Notmyhandle/Sandbox. I made a post on the Cleanup talkpage, but I need some more support. What do you think? --Notmyhandle 18:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, I love it! It sends the right signal to editors, but doesn't detract casual readers from the article.  Let's start sharing your great work with others!  I know I've read—in a policy debate somewhere—that great policies start with one individual and are adopted by others.  Why don't you write an essay supporting the use of your icon?  I'll sign onto it, we'll start implementing it, and we'll watch it "sweep" across Wikipedia!  Unschool 19:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, read this. Does this affect what we want to do? Unschool 19:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. What happens is when a template is changed, every page with that template on it has to get updated.  This will thus create a HUGE increase in the job queue (see Special:Statistics).  But the thing is, we want improvements, wikipedia wants improvements.  So long as we get it right the first time, those hundreds of thousands of changes will be worth it.  That's why my test template is a good place to experiment on for the time being.  I don't have time to write anything at the moment, but I'll do so as soon as I can, but rememember, there's already one out there, the one you showed me before (in the Paradise Lost thread).  --Notmyhandle 20:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me know when I can start sharing this with others. Man, I'm really impressed with this.  Great job. Unschool 20:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof
Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the list of authorized users, and feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page if you have any questions.  « Snowolf  How can I help? »  22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of trends in music (2000-present) (continued)
I can't delete it; I am not an admin. However, the AfD (which you have commented in) is underway, and it is scheduled to end on Saturday. All AfD proposals last five days, unless they are speedied by an admin earlier. Despite the fact that this is total OR, nobody has proposed a speedy, and it would be hard to justify. Just let the system work, and it will go away soon enough. The consensus is pretty obviously Delete, but if you have followed the DRV board, you'll see a lot of really pissed off people because of improper deletions right now. If this were ended early, some twit could squawk about it and keep it around for a week or so more. Horologium talk - contrib 01:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Most maintenance templates should be placed on the talk page
Glad to find a kindred spirit on this issue. You might be interested to read (and possibly add comments to) Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation/article --Philip Baird Shearer 18:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Small icons etc
Thanks for the note. I am all in favour of small icons rather than enormous banners taking up the whole screen - I would actually like an option where all such things disappear (including info boxes) and I can appreciate a well-written nicely set out page. (Or a floating window which I can sink.) However I see from looking around that people actually like the enormous banners ... perhaps an enormous banner that can be shrunk to a small icon at a click (and vice versa?). -- roundhouse 13:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Hi Unschool. Thank you for your comment. Yes, I was the one who came up with the small icon concept for the sprotection to replace the banners, it did fairly well here on Wikipedia, hasn't it? It took off after I put it on George W. Bush, imagine that? :) I like the concept behind the cleanup tag too, I wrote my comment about it here. I gave a bit of constructive critism so this template can get it's greatest potential use. I guess you should let the creater of the template, User:Notmyhandle, know about it so he can fix it if he chooses. Also if you two need any help with the creation of the template or need anything feel free to give me a shout. — M o e   ε  16:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Tags are nice
I saw you have removed quite a lot of tags. Didn't you get enought attention from your mother when you were young? Too much time...Testikayttaja 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ignore the tone of your message (juvenile, yet at the same time condescending), and address what I'm guessing are your concerns. If I am wrong about what you're thinking, then please, feel free to correct me.  I assume that you like tags, that you think that they either help to inform, or perhaps to improve the project, or maybe you just think that they look pretty.  Many people agree with you.  Some of us are not as enamored of them.


 * My feeling is that upwards of 90% of the tags found in the project are superfluous, and, as such, merit removal. Let's take one specific example: Paradise Lost (Symphony X album).  The first sentence reads: Paradise Lost is the yet-to-be released seventh studio album by progressive metal band Symphony X.  Now what I get out of this, is that the album has not yet been released.  Then the second sentence reads, Its release has been delayed numerous time since the announcement on November 16, 2005 that they were going to "start pulling it all together".   Okay, then let's see . . . we're going to add a tag that reads, "Current event marker 	This article contains information about a scheduled or expected future album."  Isn't that already covered by the first sentence?  So why do we need the tag?  The tag also reads, "It may contain speculative information; the content may change as the album release approaches and more information becomes available."  Now, personally, I think that that's redundant, given the first sentence of the tag.  But in this particular case it's even more obvious, since the album's release date has been delayed numerous times—clearly it's an unstable situation, and of course information can be expected to change.


 * Look, I'm not saying tags are never necessary. But you don't see them in Britannica, or any other encyclopedia, because instead of including tags, they simply create well-written articles.  Tags treat our readers as if they're so stupid that, unless we put a big colorful box at the top of the article, that they won't know that Paradise Lost is the yet-to-be released album  means that the album hasn't come out yet.  I personally don't know anyone who is both: a) that stupid and yet b) able to read.  So I'm advocating a more judicious usage of tags, that's all.  I'd be happy to discuss it more, if you'd like. Unschool 19:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True I am not as good writer as you are. And yes I was condescending. But I am impressed of how you still had the time to explain your view to me. Having said that, I now agree with you that tags are not as informative as one could expect at first glance. Do you feel that you have succeeded in changing the way wikipedians think by "preaching" about tags? Is there any actual changes to be seen or are you just figting an endless battle by removing tags as you bump into them? And I ask this in a positive way. And by the way, the album has been released as I'm listening it right now. Testikayttaja 16:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

2000s in American fashion
Oh.my.God. That is absolutely horrifying. I'll get to work on merging it ASAP (although anyone, including you, can do it). The language drivel is going to disappear first, and I'll see what I can do for the clothing section, but I will not go to sleep until I merge it out of existence.

BTW, you're welcome on nuking the music article, but I wasn't the one who actually deleted it. That requires an admin, and I am not one. Horologium talk - contrib 23:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you set it in motion. You're also a pretty good guy, it would appear, since you saw my efforts and checked with me first.    Unschool 00:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's done. I pulled the "skater clothing" section and sent it to the main article, complete with the fact tag. The rest got vaporized for the redirect, although it remains in the history for anyone persistent enough to check the original article history.


 * Thanks for the kind words, BTW. I already have one person really torqued at me, and another one who is heading that way. Take a look at Best-selling albums in the United States since Nielsen SoundScan tracking began and the associated talk page to see what I mean. The title of that page alone makes me reach for the Motrin, and the primary contributor is fuming because "I've already made my mind up". to merge it elsewhere. Without a good reason not to, yes. One solid reason not to is all I need to drop the idea... Horologium talk - contrib

The page that won't die
The Timeline of trends in music (2000-present) article is in deletion review right now. Somebody is sniveling because it went away. If you want to participate in the discussion, it's at this link. Horologium talk - contrib 04:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging articles @ top or not
Regarding your comments on the visibility of tags, etc., I'm afraid you're not going to get very far convincing me because, to use a phrase from your comments, I do believe that, in general, Wikipedia is an amateurish and unreliable source of information. (I know you used that in a cautionary way, but I take it as a truism.) So the more glaringly such faults as not enough references, etc., are pointed out, the better.

I do agree, by the way, with other things you said about the misuse of references, especially your observation that articles with more (or any) references are not necessarily any better than those with fewer or none. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Benny Hinn tag
I'm going to revert this back to the big tag. It's semi-protected due to a rather persistent vandal making explicit threats of violence. I want them to get the message and walk away from the article permanently. Hiding the tag won't do that.

If the situation is calm in another week, the sprotect will go away and the tag can go completely. Until then, please leave the big tag. It's ugly, but so is the situation right now. Georgewilliamherbert 17:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I’ve gotten many responses to the idea of icons versus tags, most in favor, a few opposed. But yours is the first response that has confused me.  I may have simply totally misunderstood you, so let me ask a few questions . . . and do please understand that I mean these as genuine questions; I don’t mean to or want to come across as a condescending jerk.
 * By “violence”, do you mean literally that you fear that some vandal intends to do actual physical violence against a Wikipedia editor?
 * Assuming that this is what you mean, do you believe that taking away his “outlet” will cause him to calm down and be less violent?
 * But I do realize that you may have been using violence as a metaphor for destructive acts of vandalism. Assuming that that is the case, then let me ask the following:


 * Do you realize that the protection comes, not from the tag, but from an admin’s protection action, and that, therefore, an article with a small icon is just as protected from vandalism as one with the large tag?
 * Do you realize that the large tag actually provides the would-be vandal with instructions as to how he can keep vandalizing, by telling him to establish an account?
 * Do you actually believe that a would-be vandal will somehow “go away” because of the message on the tag, that he will actually “get the message”?
 * And finally, you speak of persistent vandalism. That’s why we have the protection policy in the first place.  Do you really think that this article is more prone to vandalism that George W. Bush, Barrack Obama, or Hillary Clinton?  I seriously doubt it.  And yet, wiser editors that I made the decision that for these articles the small sp icon served the purposes of our encyclopedia better, by providing the article the protection it needs from vandals, without having an ugly tag splayed across the top of the page.
 * I am most interested in your reply. Respectfully, Unschool 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The vandal was inciting and offering money to anyone willing to murder Benny Hinn. That's what I mean by threats of violence.  While I doubt they're 100% serious, someone could take it to a police agency and get a murder-for-hire investigation going.
 * I entirely know that the protection comes from the protect admin function, which I did on that article, specifically due to the vandal. I also am trying to get them to go away, not merely block them from being able to edit.  The tag / note at the top are part of that discouragement campaign.  Yes, they could theoretically create sleeper accounts... in which case I'll file for a checkuser, fully protect the page, contact an ISP, in extremis make a police report.
 * If there were assassination threats being posted to George W. Bush regularly we'd have more active defenses in place there, too.
 * I hope that this clarifies the situation. Thanks for your response.  Georgewilliamherbert 04:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that certainly is a unique situation. Hope it stays that way (unique, I mean). Well, I don't know if it'll do any good, but obviously I wouldn't want to interfere with your well-intended efforts. Unschool 04:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly find the situation offensive to have to be dealing with it. And I'm open to feedback on it.  It is sort of unique, and I hope what I'm doing approximates the right thing to do.  Feel free to let me know if you have any other suggestions or concerns about it.  Georgewilliamherbert 04:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing of protection tags
I strongly oppose your decision (which appears to be arbitrary though if you have received consensus please provide a link to the applicable policy discussion page) regarding replacing "this page is protected" banners with a tiny icon that is meaningless to inexperienced editors and virtually invisible. The whole point of the banner is to call attention to the fact the page is protected. I can understand wanting to replace banners that might be considered unnecessary or procedural (such as the various "this article needs sources" banners which are ugly though no less important) but I really feel this is the wrong way to go about it. If Wikipedia policy has been changed, then please pardon me and point me to the proper documentation. Otherwise I feel this isn't going to go over very well with a lot of people (that said I appreciate that you aren't intentionally making changes to banners on user pages). 23skidoo 13:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My decision? I had nothing to do with it.  I wouldn't know how to create such a thing.  Such tags have been the norm now for many months.  Check out a list of the sp pages.  70% to 90% of them now feature the small icon, and it is not because of any mass conversions.  I have only now been doing what appear to be mass conversions to the small percentage of pages that have not already been switched over.  Go look at the category sp pages.  Pull up any 20 pages, and you'll find that upwards of 18 of them have the small icon.  Go into their edit histories.  If the small icon was placed there in the past week, perhaps two, I may have done it.  But most of them have had the small icon now for many months, and it was not done by one editor, it was done by a broad consensus of editors.  I am not sufficiently experienced in Wikipedia to even know where you would find such a policy listed, but one place I know where you can see how the "movement" might have started might be here.  It's the first thing I ever ran across on the subject.  Made a lot of sense to me, and it obviously has to a lot of other people as well. Unschool 03:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cohabitation (government)
Hello,

I'm a bit surprised by this change. I agree that, in a parliamentary system, the head of government can't be from a different political party than the majority of MPs : by the way, this cannot happen in France, too, since the Premier's nomination has to be confirmed by a vote of the Parliament.

But the head of state can be from a different political party. This happens, e.g., in Germany : Gerhard Schröder (SPD) was elected chancellor in 1998, whereas CDU Roman Herzog's term did not end till 1999. It also happens in Italy, where the president's term lasts seven years, two years longer than the Parliament's. So, it seems to me that a cohabitation can happend in parliamentary systems - the thing is, we just don't care, since the president usually doesn't matter anyway. :) Manuel Menal 16:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I understand the confusion. You are completely correct that in parliamentary systems the HOG and HOS can be from different parties.  That has been true for a very, very long time.  But that does not constitute "cohabitation".  Cohabitation is a term that was coined by scholars of the French Fifth Republic to describe a situation that, at the time it first was discussed, could only occur in their country.  Only in France did there exist a two-personed executive in which both persons had significant, genuine powers of governance.  The President of Germany or the the King of Spain or the Emperor of Japan or the President of Israel are merely titular leaders, with no true control over any significant aspect of governance.  No one is concerned about what Elizabeth II or (most recently) Shimon Peres says about much of anything—they are figureheads.


 * But when François Mitterand was elected in 1981, France faced a crisis, which was genuinely worrisome to many. A Socialist President faced a rightist-dominated legislature.  Mitterand delayed the issue by using his powers to dissolve the NA and the French people gave him a Socialist majority.  But then, after the NA elections required five years later, the Socialists were turned out, and he faced the issue again.  And he solved the problem, which many had regarded as unsolvable, by simply appointing a member of the opposition as Premier.  But—and if you were following French politics back in the '70s, after de Gaulle's departure from the scene, you will remember this—it was never that obvious to the French that this is what would happen.  It was presumed that it would be a crisis.  Personally, I think that they took this position because de Gaulle invented the Fifth Republic to suit his personal needs, and had he been President in the situation that in which Mitterand found himself in 1986, he [de Gaulle] would not have taken the same path.  He would not have appointed a prime minister who opposed his policies, and a constitutional crisis would have ensued, since the NA would then have been forced into a showdown.


 * But it didn't happen, because Mitterand was more practical than de Gaulle. Still, it was significant enough of a problem that the French have taken measures to make it much less likely to happen again.  Instead of having a seven-year presidential term and a five-year term for the NA, they are now both five year, making a power split in France of this type much, much less likely in the future.


 * However, in the last 15 years or so, the French system of having a dual executive has been adopted, to a greater or lesser degree, by a number of countries, most notably the newer republics that have emerged from behind the Iron Curtain. I am not very familiar with their electoral cycles, but even if they are synchronized, as France is now, cohabitation does remain a possibility.  And it could happen in France again, it's just that the new, five-year Presidential term makes it less likely.  Unschool 17:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of French political history, as I am a French political science student who's also into politics. ;)
 * You're saying that there is such a thing as a cohabitation only when both the President and the PM both have significant powers. I would say that there *is* a cohabitation even when the President has no significant power, but political science only cares about the first situation. That's what I was taught, at least.
 * I don't think it matters, though, since the only case we care about is the one you're referring to, so the article should just explain this. But the first paragraph needs to be clearer : right now, it says that cohabitations "occur because of the duality of the executive". According to you, this is not enough : both figures also must have significant powers.
 * Adding this explanation would avoid further mistakes (and edits) to be made, IMO.
 * Thanks, Manuel Menal 07:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I apologize for what must have come across as a patronizing tone. It was not until I made the post that I realized that you yourself were French.  Nonetheless, I must stand by what I have written, not only because it was how I was taught, but because I have never seen any other references in any literature that contradict it.  If what you assert is accurate, then the term cohabitation would seem to have been used before 1958; I cannot recall hearing it before 1980.


 * Nonetheless, I am open—as always—to the possibility that I am wrong. I would like to see some sources, or be directed to some sources, that would say otherwise.  I am unfortunately no longer close enough to any university facilities to look up any abstracts you might suggest, but perhaps something can be found online.  I not only want for the article to be accurate, even more than that, I want for my knowledge to be accurate.  I await any such direction as you might be able to provide.  Cheers.  Unschool 02:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Smile
 Hello Unschool, Hydrogen Iodide 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thank you for cleaning up One Rincon Hill and Millennium Tower. Hydrogen Iodide 22:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the smile! It did make me smile. Unschool 03:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

links in By the Waters of Babylon
This is already under discussion at Talk:By the Waters of Babylon. --Jtir 22:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Mutual links
In reply to your question about how to find articles that link to an article, if I've understood the question correctly, you can just look at the "What links here" page for the article in question (look in the left navigation bar under "toolbox")... Valrith 16:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Egads! Two years editing this blasted thing and I've never hit that before!  Never thought about it!  Very cool—though I appear most uncool just noticing it after 3000+ edits.  Thanks. Unschool 19:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WRT "Acting Vice President of the United States"
I appreciate the questionability of it, but swearing on the talk page doesn't exactly solve its problems. You may wish to hit it with prod and/or AfD it again. In the mean time I've tagged it with hoax. 68.39.174.238 18:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I shall endeavour to avoid such language in the future.  In my everyday world, such a use in such a situation would have been deemed entirely appropriate by my colleagues, but you are correct that it is unhelpful here.  I appreciate the thoughtful nature of your reprimand. Unschool 19:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your welcome and I appreciate your entirely civil reply. I appreciate your ProDding the articel as well and have added a secondary endorsement tag (prod2a). 68.39.174.238 13:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Acting VP
I totally agree with your edits and that Acting Vice President of the United States should not exist on wikipedia. I tried to delete it already, but there was one or two editors in particular who felt strongly that it should be kept and argued for on the deletion page. Using a prod procedure for an article that once failed an AfD might not be proper form but, in any event, you should re-read the previous deletion discussion and be prepared for the "sources" that they'll come up with as defense for the article. I will glad support another AfD or your PROD. JasonCNJ 22:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * After reviewing WP:PROD I have discovered that using for articles previously submitted to AfD is against policy. Thus, I have removed the  tags and I encourage you to renominate this article for deletion. (Having previously nominated it, I feel I should not submit it once again.) I will support your AfD and look forward to seeing it posted there. JasonCNJ 14:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding out about that and then taking care of it. Here's what I now think I'll do.  I have placed specific  tags in the article, and I'm going to wait a week or two for someone to try to find documentation for those "facts".  We both know that there is no factual basis for these statements, and I expect then after this wait that these tags will remain.  At that time I will remove these fabricated statements, which will leave the pseudo-article even more skeletonized.  At that point I shall submit it for AfD.  That okay with you? Unschool 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, sounds like a great plan. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. JasonCNJ 00:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tammy Faye
Please quit changing the place of death of Tammy Faye. Every article notes she died at her home NEAR Kansas City. That suburb is Loch Lloyd, Missouri. Americasroof 22:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was about to lambast you for misreading my edits, and went back with the intent of creating a link to prove how wrong you were. All I had done—I thought—was to remove the recent death tag, which I felt unnecessary.  However, sure enough, the history shows that I did make the change of which you accused me.  Nonetheless, I assure you that I did NOT do that.  Indeed, I have never given the slightest thought to the place of her death,  nor am I familiar with the Kansas City area, nor do I even care about it.  My solitary interest in the article was in it's having been polluted by an unnecessary tag.


 * So what happened? I have absolutely no idea, except that perhaps I opened up the history (as I often do when preparing to edit articles), and then opened up an old version of the page.  Though I can't really imagine doing that, it is the only way I can think to explain why it appears that I made some edits that I know that I didn't make.


 * I offer my apologies for the error. I would only ask of you, that, in your annoyance, that you also guard against exagerated accusations:  When you use the phrase, Please quit changing the place of death, it sounds to me like you are accusing me of doing it repeatedly.  Hey, even when I have a serious editorial conflict with another editor, I never do anything repeatedly; I talk about it first.  I think a review of the record shows that this once-in-a-million happenstance did in fact happen, only one time. Unschool 23:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * After I posted it I did have second thoughts should have toned it down especially after looking at your history legitimate contributions. I was a little cranky after starting the article on Loch Lloyd which was incorporated around a golf course in 2003 and so had fallen off the wiki map.  I'm guessing that you reverted a significantly earlier version.  There were 11 edits between my edit and your edit.  The edit summaries did not imply a revert so that raised flags for me.  I do know how all this is possible.  Anyway keep up your good work.  Americasroof 03:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent death
I didn't know it was there before, so I looked at other articles of recently deceased people, and saw the tag of those who died the same day, and some the day before. Though, I did hesitate about putting it up, but went ahead anyway. I'll remove it. Thanks! - Jeeny Talk 05:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't take your message in a bad way at all. I did have doubts about putting it up, so I should have listened to my gut. Your message helped my doubt. and I was more than happy to remove it. I just didn't know what the actual protocol was. Nothing to do with you or your message. I have no problem receiving constructive criticism, and guidance when I don't know what I'm doing. lol. Or when someone has a better idea, to just change it. I'm pretty laid-back -- when people are reasonable that is, and you were, and are. :) Cheers! - Jeeny Talk 05:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth the the recent death template was probably appropriate in this case (and probably should be reinstated for a few days) as much as I hate templates. A celebrity's death prompts lots of wikipedia edits and the article often becomes difficult to track with legitimate edits mixed with garbage.  An example of this was my comment above about the reverting of my added information about the correct city of Tammy Faye's death.   However, I do think the template should be changed to reflect this issue rather than its corny way of saying it now.Americasroof 13:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about wording it like this: "This subject of this article is a recently deceased person.  Because of the attention drawn to such articles because of the recent death, this article is at a higher risk of having been vandalized, and the information within may be less accurate than normal"?  Yeah, I know, too long.  But what about the principle of this phrasing? Unschool 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Graphics
I'm no whiz. lol. Especially with the wiki-codes. Anyway, Wikipedia wants you to see the stub message so editors will expand it. I can do images, but not coding. I do know that when more text is added to the article, the info template will balance itself. Or you can simply remove the template, and just put the info in the article. I didn't read the template though, nor the subject matter, so I don't know if that would help. I just took a very brief glance at the page, and knew immediately I could not fix it. Not without writing about the subject until it fit the length of the template, anyway. Sorry. - Jeeny Talk 06:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's okay. Thanks for looking.  See you around. Unschool 06:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, taking a second look, I just added some space between the stub template and the text. It's down further, now. It doesn't look much better though. Hopefully someone will expand it soon. :) - Jeeny Talk 06:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tags
Tags is a user's personal opinion, and unless he wasn't to propose an amendment to Help:Merging and moving pages (the procedure that has been in place far longer), then please don't use him as a reason to put tags at the bottom. They may be ugly, but they are in plain sight. Being at the bottom puts them out of view, and limits the chance of random readers seeing them and joining the discussion. Standard practice is to place them at the top. If you and Shane disagree, I would suggest requesting some form of amendment to the procedure page for those tags, whether it's for merging, referencing, or cleanup. As placing them at the bottom, out of plain sight, suggests that the article doesn't have any problems, or that there isn't a discussion about an addition/split to the article.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiss 1st paragraph
In general it works for me but the # of Hiss' defenders is what's under contention. I put in a cite and changed many to a few. The talk page on Alger Hiss has a longer discussion of this controversy. TMLutas 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you were correct to change this from "many". However, I think that your version, saying "a few", has zero chance of surviving an edit war.  How is my compromise version? Unschool 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent death tag removal
Hi. Please read WP:POINT. I will block your account from editing if you continue removing recent death tags. If you wish to discuss the tag, please take up your conversation on the tag's talk page. Under no circumstances should you disrupt a dozen or more articles in order to generate such a discussion. Rklawton 13:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope that you are not in the habit of placing your comments on other users' talk pages smack dab in the middle of someone else's comments. I saw that I had a new message, opened my discussion page, and looked for nearly five minutes before I found your comments—located between the first and second points of another user's discussion of diacritics.  I presume that this wasn't deliberate, but I can't imagine how one could have done it accidentally, either.  Some people get in such a rage over things that they don't really see what they're doing; but not knowing you I cannot presume that, either.  Well, if you were flying off the handle, better that your loss of control occurred on my talk page and not while driving down the street where you could have actually hurt someone.


 * I completely disagree with your characterization of my tag removal as disruption. I am familiar with WP: POINT, and I sincerely believe that it does not apply here.  Why?  There is no defined period under which the RDT is supposed to remain.  Most of the ones that I have removed have been over a month old, some over three months old.  Is that disruption?  If not, what is?  Where is the line drawn?  Clearly, 24 hours is too soon for removal, if one subscribes to the notion that such tags serve a purpose.  But is one week?  I sincerely believe I do a favor if I "update" the encyclopedia where out of date information exists.  Don't you do the same?  But when is an RDT out of date?  Where is that guideline written?  It may very well exist, but I have yet to have anyone show me, and I am not familiar enough with the "backstage" of Wikipedia to find it myself.


 * Anyway, I provided a rationale for my actions. The courtesy of responding to my points, before threatening an editor who has a two-year history of editing without a single block or even a threat thereof, might be expected. Unschool 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't a clue how my comments ended up where they did. Perhaps I wasn't careful enough.  Perhaps there was an edit conflict.  I typically bottom-post.


 * Regarding tag removal. You raise good and interesting points.  Stick with our usual method of process management and you'll do fine.  The appropriate place to address them, however, is on the tag's talk page.  However, I don't see that you've made any attempt to communicate there.  Most people will never find the user page you've created on the topic - unless they catch one of your edit summaries.  Go on a tag removal spree like you did last night with summaries pointing to your user space, and you cross the WP:POINT line.


 * Personally, I think the tag can go away when edit rates return to following pre-death trends. Rklawton 20:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. Even more, thank you for the tone of your response, which came across as very civil.  I hope that I come across the same way.


 * Anyway, as I have written elsewhere, I am not very familiar with the "backstage" of Wikipedia. Sometimes I follow links to such pages, but I honestly have no idea how I would find such a talk page.  I'm sure that you will let me know.


 * Beyond that, I do disagree with what I assume is the intended inference of your statement, Most people will never find the user page you've created on the topic - unless they catch one of your edit summaries, namely, that my ideas will get wider exposure on the talk page. I truly feel that that is simply not true.  In my two years of editing, I have learned that those Wikipedia project talk pages, or whatever they are called, are the domain of less than one in a thousand Wikipedians.  And those that do participate there tend to have de facto bailiwicks, and quickly shoot down new ideas proposed by "the little guy".  But I have seen movement towards change take place out in the trenches, where people who have been exposed to ideas away from the board room are slowly changing consensus, which is a perfectly acceptable practice, as I read policy.


 * At the same time, I truly do not want to be disruptive. I respect your opinion about my edits and WP:POINT, but respectfully disagree.  Removing a tag from a person who has been dead for a week or longer and whose page has not been edited for content since the announcement of his death and the placement of the RDT, is simply not disruptive.  Of course, that wasn't true of all of the articles where I removed the tag, so I shall be much more careful.  But clearly, the issue of when to remove this tag is a subjective one, and exercising a good-faith deletion of such a tag should hardly be grounds for any punitive response.


 * Anyway, though I consider it to likely be a fool's errand, I will go to the talk page after you show me how to get there, and discuss my ideas there. But it's like anything else. The population of the page will be dominated by people who consider that tag to be their own pet project, and I'm quite sure that proposals to change the use of the tag will be quickly shot down by the ostensible "consensus".  But you know, Robert, any decision made without the knowledge of 99.99% of the people affected is hardly founded on consensus.  And that's the game we play here on Wikipedia.  Oh well. Unschool 23:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Here: Template talk:Recent death. Rklawton 01:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Acting Vice President of the United States
I noticed that you appear to be quite adament in your belief that the Acting Vice President of the United States article is a hoax which should be deleted. I was initially of the same thought, however, after some quick research it has become clear that the term was at least used, even if the office never existed under any law. I have provided several sources. Cheers, JCO312 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With the greatest of reluctance, I am forced to admit that you have largely convinced me that this article may remain. The article referring to Eastland would not have convinced me; it's not hard to find moronic misinformation on the web.  Nor are the references that I have seen, of a member of the Senate using the term on the floor, in any persuasive to me.  But the stuff on the official US Senate site cannot be taken lightly.  Still, even that is not as powerful as it looks at first glance, given that
 * the Tyler article never uses the phrase except as a header, with no elaboration
 * the Calverley/Foster article uses the phrase "acting vice president" with no capitalization, leading one to question that it was even regarded as an actual title, let alone an office (if one was to use the phrase "walking vice president", no one would mistake the use of the present participle as part of a title)
 * But I pride myself in holding truth above all other values in this project, and I must acknowledge that the combined effect of the three sources is enough to convince me, at this time, to not request an RfA.


 * But let me broach just one other thing. JCO, this article contains an incredibly small, nearly infinitessimal, speck of semi-information.  As an educator, I can't tell you how it makes me cringe to think of the young student who is going to come across this article and place some kind of importance on it.  I think it needs to be minimized (though you were 100% correct about the deletion of the opening sentence).  In particular, I think that the huge table—larger than 90% of similar tables out there—lends a huge amount of apparent gravitas to the subject matter.  The power of that table, as a visual, will overwhelm the text for many readers, and lend an official appearance to the term "Acting Vice President". Is it really necessary?  Given that nothing of significance ever happened during the times which these men were ostensibly the Acting VP, do we need to know who they are?  Why not just eliminate the table and the references to persons who "served" in this non-existent office, so as to minimize the inevitable misunderstandings that are going to arise from this article's existence.   Would you consider eliminating that table? Unschool 04:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I agree that any of those references individually would not be enough to convince of the validity of the subject matter (I was initially one of the people calling for it to be deleted in the first AfD). Combined, however, they are sufficient to convince even a skeptic like me.


 * As far as the table, I do not share your concerns regarding its "power." Anyone who bothers to simply read the preceding text would know not to place to much weight on the subject matter.  That being said, the table is largely WP:OR, and is tangentially related to the article (it's not actually a table of people who were referred to as Acting Vice President, rather it is a table of individuals who were in line to assume the powers of the presidency in the absence of a Vice President).  I am not strongly in favor of it or strongly opposed to it, though, once again, I would not delete simply out of a desire to minimize the significance of the topic.  Cheers, JCO312 14:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally understand your skepticism about the "power" of the table, but when you write, "Anyone who bothers to simply read the preceding text", I see that I failed to make myself clear. While I totally acknowledge that it is not Wikipedia's job to protect anyone from anything, I wrote what I did as an educator with 22 years of experience, and I will tell you right now that the problem is that the majority of today's students who come across an article like this will not read the text.  Their eyes will be drawn to the table, they will draw their inferences from the headings, and the damage will be done.  But again, as I must acknowledge, this is not Wikipedia's problem or responsibility.


 * I will, however, agree with your point about the table being OR. Accordingly, I will delete it, and then leave the article (which you have significantly improved) alone.  I hope we are in accord?   Many thanks for illuminating me on this topic.  Unschool 14:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We are. Cheers, JCO312 20:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
No, I'm not pissed; I'm amused. Therefore I confined myself to sarcasm; if I had used invective, like Pschemp, I would have found something better. (There's a poem by Catullus...)

But this is why I call them nationalists. The ß fans behave exactly like any other of our advocacy groups; see such naming controversies as the one recently concluded at Talk:Shatt al-Arab. Any of a dozen nations will do as parallels, but I happen to recall an Iranian example. Any argument will do; and they never have answers to arguments to policy, except "It's not Faaaiiiirrr if we don't get our way!"

Is this failure to assume good faith? No, it's failure to observe good faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Valerie Plame/Wilson
Hey, I noticed you moved the article on Joe Wilson's wife back to Valerie Plame from Valerie E. Wilson. There's been a fair amount of discussion on that article's talk page over the move, with a consensus on moving it to Valerie Wilson, Valerie E. Wilson to distinguish her from other notable Valerie Wilsons. Your specific objection, that she is not most famous as Valerie E. Wilson, is a good idea until it conflicts with the facts. For instance, the term Latin Mass is commonly used as a substitute for the more unwieldy term Tridentine Mass, but the Wikipedia article remains at Tridentine Mass with a disambiguation link on the Latin Mass page, because "Latin Mass" is vague and incorrect. Similarly, Bob Novak's "Valerie Plame" is and always was "Valerie Wilson" outside of her undercover CIA work. I don't see the problem with having the article at "Valerie E. Wilson" and including a redirect at "Valerie Plame". I hope to hear from you soon, -- The_socialist talk? 18:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha
Thanks for your comment! Guess what tomorrow is.. My 18th birthday! YAY. Oreo 14 August 2007

Fred Thompson & Garfield
It seemed to me that the remark about Garfield being Churches of Christ is not backed up by Garfield's article. There it says he belonged to Disciples of Christ--from the Wikipedia articles about both Churches  and Disciples  they seemed to be different. I'm not sure though.--Jdavid2008 17:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fairbury, IL
Yes, that article is my own writing. I wrote it several years ago for a now defunct website, which I was assured never held any copyright to it. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okefenokee. Just checking. Unschool 04:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:UE
Enjoy your holiday; when you get back, we are fine-tuning Use English. You may want to look in. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Anakin Skywalker
Regarding these edits: I reverted. Please accept that while the tags appear to "pollute" the article in your opinion, they are really only drawing attention to things that need to be taken care of. You can remove them after the article has been improved, but for now they are indeed appropriate. Tagging single statements as dubious has nothing to do with in-universe style. Please don't try to "hide" the fact that this article needs improvement by removing and/or moving those tags, as it's a huge disservice to the reader who can rightfully expect our articles to be written from a real world perspective and featuring published, reliable third-party sources. —AldeBaer 11:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct that the "in-universe" tag is a separate issue, and my approach to that may not have been correct. But I am unclear as to what it is that the tag is expecting.  I have read the materials to which you directed me, and I am still unclear as to what is expected.  Could you direct me to some examples of pages that handle this universe-issue in a manner that you deem appropriate?  As it stands I do not know what exactly is expected.


 * Per the issue of the large tag demanding citations: I see more and more people placing these at the bottom of the article, some perhaps for the same (aesthetic) reasons that I do, others perhaps for reasons of their own.  In any event, the tag at the top does nothing that individual citation tags would not do.  Indeed, it does less, because its nebulous demand can (and, I have seen, often does) remain affixed to the article long after it is well-documented.  And indeed, what is well-documented?  As I wrote (and, as far as I can see, you did not respond to), some articles that have many citations nonetheless continue to possess dubious statements.  These need to be specifically challenged with a  tag.  But simply placing a large tag at the top leaves the reader wondering what is and isn’t reliable.  Quite bluntly, it’s lazy.  There is no article on Wikipedia of any length onto which I could not fairly affix the large tag at the top.  Would it make the encyclopedia better?  I think not.  And, more importantly, such a tag impedes rather than assists the chances of the article's improvement, as its vague nature gives no direction to the editor who might otherwise be interested in making improvements.  This is not to say that I would invariably oppose its usage; I can imagine (and have read) articles that were almost bereft of anything that appeared to be factual.  Is that how you see this article?  I certainly don’t.  Therefore, why not exercise a bit of industry and share with us which statements you doubt?  Very possibly a specific statement that is questioned will be supported quickly by whichever editor added it.  But with your big large tag, each editor can easily say to himself, “My material, at least, is not part of the problem.  It's what those other people wrote.”


 * I will not move or remove the tag just now, pending our discussion. I am particularly eager to learn more about this proper way to write articles that take place within fictional universes.  I understand and agree that this is preferred, for an encyclopedia, but I don’t understand how to pull it off; it seems that most of the articles from fictional universes that I have read are just like this one.  I look forward to appropriate examples, as I do to your comments in general.   Unschool 03:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you check WP:WAF? There are currently three featured articles about Star Wars characters: Palpatine, Padmé Amidala, and Jabba the Hutt. What unites them is that they are consistently written from the real world perspective. This applies particularly to the sections Palpatine, Padmé Amidala, and Jabba the Hutt, each of which discusses real world aspects which go far beyond a plot summary.


 * You're right that even very well-referenced articles often contain unreferenced individual statements. But if and when such a statement is disputed, the burden of proof rests with those who want to include it. (IIRC, Jimbo himself said something to the effect that fact is being overused and really doubtful statements without any reference should rather be boldly removed.) Yet it's a bit premature to talk about counter-checking every last statement in an article that relies heavily or exclusively on primary sources.


 * The primarysources tag is not there to say that everything in the article is doubtful. It mostly adds emphasis to the fact that e.g. Anakin Skywalker is essentially a plot summary and that it needs reliable third-party sources to be usefully expanded to include real world perspective. In the case of a Star Wars character, even as notable as Darth Vader, such independent sources can be hard to come up with — yet a book on "The Movies of George Lucas" holds some advantage over just using the movies and novels. But as you can see, I didn't tag that article, mostly because it has coherently written sections on real world aspects such as Portrayals, Character creation and concepts, and Darth Vader as a cultural figure, all of which greatly improve the depth of the article. Something along those lines would also be a major enhancement to Anakin Skywalker. —AldeBaer 05:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the additional sources on style, and examples of how to write from the correct perspective. I don't know when (or if) I shall actually do any editing of Anakin to correct this problem (it's not really all that important an article to me), but I will undoubtedly study these materials to increase my knowledge of Wikipedia.  I shall touch base with you on this later on, and I thank you for your patience and generosity with your time.   Unschool 12:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this: I would have gone with the simple and accurate identifier franchise. (But I won't revert, just wanted to give you a note.) —AldeBaer 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, excellent suggestion. Done. Unschool 00:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, and to illustrate my contention: before notifying you, I checked both our own entry and the wiktionary entry at wikt:saga. After that, out of curiosity, I looked up the Star Wars main article and, sure enough, someone had redirected the link from our article to the wikt entry —which mentions the pop cultural meaning— using a confusing and dishonest edit summary (it wasn't a disambig page even back then). I hope my change sticks, but you can never know. —AldeBaer 10:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paptimus Scirocco
I agree that this article needs to be fixed, and I've made a few changes to it, but I would not delete or redirect it considering the epic battle between him and the protagonist Kamille Bidan. Shaneymike 14:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Jacksonville, Florida
Jacksonville, Florida has received some heavy editing recently. Would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 19:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Spamily Tree.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Spamily Tree.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 05:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverting
I found this revert a bit strange. Yes, you're right that the reasoning behind Jayron's revert is contrary to Wikipedia, but even stranger is the version he reverted from in which Pmanderson claims that no place that doesn't have an English name belong here. JdeJ 09:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It may look funny; but I really doubt there is much substantive content to the article, and most of that would be better elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sylvan Learning
Thank you for your good-common-sense editing of Sylvan Learning... I moved the tags up for attention and I'm glad someone noticed. :) If you don't mind, might I suggest you take a look at the Concordia Language Villages entry? I would (and have) trim it, but I'm an insider and it would be best dealt with by an unbiased outsider with good editing sense. Thank you again! mitcho/芳貴 08:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Paul Tsongas
I've started a conversation on word usage on Paul Tsongas discussion page. It's under the section Pyrrhic victory vs Moral victory. Your opinion would be great. Thanks Gang14 00:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorites paradox
You're welcome! List of paradoxes is a good starting point if you're interested in different type of paradox in general; Arrow's paradox is another one I find quite interesting, although it's not applicable to the VG discussion. I really thought there would be more support for using "was" when I brought the discussion to WP:VG. It's almost anticlimactic. Anomie 01:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Successful RfA - Thank you!
Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate the support! &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Olympic Rule
I like that! Really the article for a furture Olympics should be singled out when there are OFFICAL applicant cities, and the article can follow those 4-6 cities That time frame for selection is available on the Olympic website and gamesbids.com. The two most reliable sources for Olympic bids. So the Future Bids site will allow people to speculate and ponder all the way into 2342. And it will keep the discussion pages free to. I've slacked in my police-ing of the sites, I even saw someone wanting info on a moon games... odd. But all the more reason to keep a tap on the speculation. So let me ponder aloud... 1) Each games would have their own page, and yearly link in the bottom box up to the 2016 and 2018 games. ('16 and '18 would have minimal information and just be a stub). After the 2018 link there would be a "future bids" link pertaining to 2020 and beyond. 2) '16 and '18 are included in the future bids page and only offical olympic games are given a yearly link in the bottom. I don't really know how to create a merge of a page so feel free. But something needs to be done to keep this pages from getting out of conrol. Thanks for the idea! Go with it! 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Moonraker0022 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Tortoise FPC
Hi I remembered your comments about my previous nomination for FP of a leopard tortoise. I have taken a better picture. Could you please vote for it? Here Muhammad Mahdi Karim 03:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor Edits
I understand where you're coming from and are quite modest in my editing of wikipedia. The major editing was obviously the formation of the article, I was merely editing it as most points need examples, and I just happened to have one going spare, so decided to implement it in the Titular ruler article.

It's nice to be appreciated for the small job I try and strive to succeed to do on Wikipedia, I wholeheartedly thank you. PoliceChief (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nash Ramblers and other old stuff
Not sure if you're still watching the page, but I left a response at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Grammar. Hope it's of interest. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nickname Jacksonville Municipal Stadium
I added some references to the nickname "The Jack" in the article talk page. Now please return the nickname to the info-box. Thank you. 83.84.121.39 (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts. I have responded on the talk page for "The Jack".   Unschool (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tortoise FPCC
Hi, Could you please give your opinion on the images here before I nominate for Featured Picture? Thanks, Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Tag placement
Usually, I'll add tags to the bottom of articles. There's been times when my placement of tags has been to the top of an article, but I guess I lean more towards bottom placement. Why do I do this? The essay at User:Shanes/Why tags are evil sums up why I prefer to tag towards the bottom. The tags are just ugly, confusing to readers, and serve to help only us, Wikipedia editors. Readers care little about issues that us editors need to bring to each others attention, therefore I tag where I feel appropriate, either at the bottom of the article, or within the relevant section. -- Longhair\talk 09:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not rub your opinion off on other editors, if that is your prerogative your welcome to it. I wish to encourage involvement in the editing of the encyclopedia and to remind users this is a wiki. There are numerous precedence for policies that are in alignment with keeping editing-templates at the top. Please do not move my tags to the bottom of the article -- thanks. EvanCarroll (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm, so I'm permitted the "prerogative" of an opinion, but I cannot try to persuade others to my point of view? Reminds me of the right to "vote" in a totalitarian state in which there was only one candidate on the ballot.
 * Anyway, I never start an edit war over the issue, because I do respect the rights of others to have their opinions, and to also exercise the choices that naturally stem from those opinions. But I also believe in the right to peacefully proselytize.  I emphasize peacefully, because I will never intentionally do anything that would be disruptive of the encyclopedia.
 * Tag placement is a respected convention, but it is not a hard and firm policy. Conventions can change, if enough editors come to believe that change is desirable.  This is, as you say, a wiki—not only in terms of writing and editing, but also in terms of the rules.  We work together, in mutual respect, assuming in good faith that we all want the same thing:  to build the best encyclopedia in the world.
 * If I understand you correctly, you like the tags at the top for the reason that they encourage more participation by visitors to the site. That is one of the better arguments that I have come across for justifying the tags at the top.  I'm not at this time convinced that it sufficient reason, but it'll go into my pool of debating points on the issue, and I may change my opinion eventually. (And, truth be told, I am much less anti-tag in both my thoughts and my actions than I used to be; if I didn't think it would bore you further, I'd go into the evolution of my stance on tags over the past two years.)  I encourage you to exercise your obvious intelligence and keep an open mind.  Cheers.  Unschool (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome to your prerogative: I'm not trying to convince you to stop the discourse on tag placement. I just wish you wouldn't undue my edits, especially if the only contribution is your style preference. Furthering that especially, especially, when it is contrary to the WP:SNOWBALL. No real offense taken, you can't be an editor on Wikipedia and take offense to anything, never mind something so minor. But it's my preference to maintain the status quo, and encourage participation in bettering the encyclopedia. ;) EvanCarroll (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind reply. I might point out that, whilst I merely moved your tag on Hagfish, someone else actually removed it.
 * On a separate point, the reader that you seek to involve in editing might well infer from the tag that she can expect to find some guidance on the talk page as to what she can do about the issue. My initial glimpse at the talk page indicated nothing at all on the subject.  (I have since looked more carefully and found a single sentence that was inserted about 15 months ago; it merely indicated—like the tag you placed—the need for sectioning.  Unfortunately [and ironically], that comment was not traditionally sectioned off, and thus I missed it in my overview.)  While it may not always be practical, I think if you wish to accomplish your goal of increased involvement, you might want to consider providing some guidance to the would-be editor on the talk page. Just a thought.  I appreciate your sincere efforts to help improve the project, and look forward to any future discussions we may have.   Unschool (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, one more thing. Regarding SNOWBALL:  That's what many would have said a year ago about the spoiler tag. :-)  Unschool (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Allied Occupation Zones in Germany
Hi, just to let you know that citing another article (Satellite state), which also has NPOV problems (i.e "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality" is hardly a reference to be used on another Wikipedia article).

In addition, from No original research:


 * Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way. No original research, or NOR, is a corollary to two other policies:
 * Our original major content policy, neutral point of view (NPOV) encourages editors to add undisputed facts, including unbiased accounts of various people's views. It has traditionally forbidden editors from inserting their own views into articles, and demands that Wikipedia balance the relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on their prominence in the relevant field.
 * Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources.
 * Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately.
 * NPOV, V, and NOR are Wikipedia's three principal content policies. Since NPOV, V, and NOR complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

Therefore the GDR being a satellite of the USSR is only an opinion of yours and others, just as my opinion is that Saddam Hussein was a puppet stooge of the USA (when the US told him to invade Iran and kept on supporting him) up until (foolishly) he invaded Kuwait, without the okay from the CIA first, thus making him the most dominant player in the region, something that the West could not tolerate, etc etc etc. I have my opinions like you have yours, but neither have a place on Wikipedia. Calling me "naive" should not be a way of replacing the principal policies of Wikipedia.

Allied Occupation Zones in Germany must be cleaned up to comply with the above 3 principals (NPOV, V, and NOR).

Seth Whales (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That the GDR and other eastern European states were puppets of the USSR is indeed my opinion. It is also the opinion of the vast majority of persons who enjoyed sentience during the Cold War.  A denial that eastern European states were under the thumb of the Soviet Union, with all respect, equates to a denial of the geopolitics of the Cold War.  Is it really necessary to fill that little caption box under the map with the hundreds or thousands of citations that one could come up with in an instant to verify that the GDR was a Soviet satellite?  Even Vladimir Posner has disappeared from the airwaves; the fact of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe is simply not something most people question today.


 * I'm going to assume assume good faith and not take your listing of principal Wikipedia policies as a patronizing insult (though you might have checked and found that I have been an editor for over two years, and would therefore likely have long ago learned about such policies). Also, I'm not going to revert right now (assuming that you made the change; I haven't looked yet), because you are clearly sincere in this position of yours.  I'm open to discussion, and suggest we take it to the talk page of the article concerned.Unschool (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No I did not revert, I only ever revert once. I will not start any edit war.  However I always try to cite a NPOV reference to every paragraph that I write, and suggest that this is best practice for every editor.  I have not answered your point whether or not the GDR was or was not a satellite of the USSR, because I just wanted a citation that had a NPOV...That now is my final word on the matter.   Seth Whales (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm going to take it slow for now -- I'm working my way through the New admin school, carefully investigating the admin tools and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! --Elonka 07:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wein Air Alaska
Hello again! I had a chat with Kwsn today and he didn't mind me helping out. I've undeleted Wein Air Alaska and put it here User:Unschool/Wein_Air_Alaska for you. Once it has a little more meat to stand on its own legs, feel free to move it back into mainspace. Cheers, henrik  • talk  19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Padan Plain
I would appreciate your opinion on the question of the best name for this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Isometries in physics
I had a go at isometries in physics. Please take a look and see what parts are still not clear. Of course, given the topic it will never be totally friendly to an intro-level reader, but I hope it will at least be possible to tell what the article is about. --Reuben (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Please accept my token of gratitude on your user page. Unschool (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the barnstar! Perhaps I'll continue working on the cleanup list.  In some ways, confusing articles that nobody's touched in a couple of years are the ideal place to contribute to Wikipedia.  --Reuben (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Public funding of schools
I agree with your critique and I have removed reference to tax funding. --Mgreason (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Criterion
By what criterion did you select to invite those 34 people to comment on Franz Josef Strauß? Haukur (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I didn't respond earlier; when I came back from my mini-break, I had several messages (quite unusual for me) and missed yours in the ensuing chaos. Anyway, your question deserves a response, especially in light of WP:CANVASS, which, as I have stated at the talk page for FJS, I was unaware of.


 * Yes, I specifically selected people who had previously indicated interest in the use of ß in en.wiki, specifically, those who had appeared on the talk pages as either sharing my viewpoint or at least appearing open-minded (no offense intended). I did this because I assumed (from seeing the same ß-proponents on article after article) that the other side was already doing this; that was the impression I got, looking at the talk pages, seeing the same names, over and over.


 * Now, I must assume, I was wrong, that this is not a common practice. And assuming that this is not the case, I can truly understand why the guideline against canvassing—or, more to the point, vote stacking—was created.  But it was never my intent to seize an unfair advantage, I just thought we should do what everyone else was (logically) doing.


 * Having said that, I must say that I'm not yet convinced that the policy is a good idea. The motive behind it is admirable, but it is unlikely to succeed, in the long run.  It reminds me quite a bit of the attempts in the US to regulate campaign finance.  We allow each citizen to donate $1000/$2000/$4000 (depends on which law is currently in effect) to a candidate, but no more, because we don't want him or her to have "undue influence" on policy issues that today's candidate and tomorrow's officeholder will have to decide.  But it doesn't work.  After the 1974 campaign finance act, donors got around it by giving additional monies in the names of their spouses, children, and friends.  When that loophole was closed, donors got around limits on donations by giving directly to the political parties.  When that loophole was closed, donors started buying TV ads independently that supported their candidate of choice.  The point is, any attempts to limit expression in a reasonably free society are doomed to failure.


 * The limits on canvassing are, as I indicated, well-intended. But persons who are not of good faith can surely find ways around them.  The most obvious is through email, but there's probably other ways as well.  As long as the rule is one that tries to supress the natural tendencies of people to associate and express themselves, there will be people trying to get around the rule, and they will succeed.  Only the people who hold the rule more dear than their own expression will be restrained.  And is that the world/Wikipedia that we want?


 * Far more likely to succeed in achieving what you and I both so clearly want (for I have no doubt that we share both the value of following an honest process as well as the goal of making this the best encyclopedia possible) would be to combine freedom with transparency.  User:Masterhatch here makes the point that "I see no problem with canvassing people who actually would have an interest in the subject . . . I believe that as many people as possible should be contacted with not only this vote, but all votes throughout wikipedia."  I think that I agree with this sentiment, as long as two conditions are followed:  One: As Masterhatch says, make sure that those informed have already demonstrated interest in the subject (otherwise we would be creating a spam machine) and Two: Make sure that whoever makes the contact with the editors does so transparently.  Notices should be placed on the relevant talk pages that so-and-so has contacted so-and-so about this discussion.   And if you find an editor who is canvassing secretly, you nail his behind with some heavy-duty sanctions.  Sure, some people will still get away with it.  But freedom of expression will be preserved, a fair playing field will be established, and more people will get involved in the process.  And that, methinks, can only be a good thing.


 * Haukur, I've always enjoyed coming across your comments, and have respected you for the respect that you've shown others. I look forward to future discussions.  I wish you a very Merry Christmas, and hope that the coming year brings blessings for you and those close to you.  Unschool (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And glad Yule to you too. Yes, once you've donated your $2300 to the Ron Paul campaign you go and buy blimp time or something. But it's still substantially more difficult to effectively spend a lot of money on a campaign than it would be without any campaign finance law. I personally think McCain-Feingold has a lot of unintended negative consequences. I hope they are more than counterbalanced by the intended positive consequences but I'm not sure.


 * As for canvassing, well. Contacting dozens of people who are likely to be predisposed to come down a certain way on a dispute is a violation of the canvassing guideline as you've graciously conceded. I think it is a problem because the result of the poll is no longer representative of anything in particular. Last time we had a poll it was split down the middle, now we have a poll and it's overwhelmingly in favor of one point of view. The typical ß poll results in no consensus and I think that's an accurate reflection of the opinions of people who care about the articles in question or the orthographical issue. Also note that there's no way to completely undo the effect. Even if we wait a month then at least some of the people contacted will still be watching the article.


 * It's true that open canvassing is better than secret canvassing and I'm sure secret canvassing does take place in some cases. Should we allow all canvassing since it's hard for us to effectively prevent secret canvassing? Not necessarily - we also can't always effectively prevent sockpuppets from affecting polls but that doesn't mean we should allow multiple votes from the same person. "Hey, at least I'm openly voting multiple times! My oppenents are no doubt doing the same thing using sockpuppets!" That won't fly.


 * Sockmasters screw up and get detected. People who do secret canvassing also get their cover blown from time to time. And we muddle along. Imperfectly, but as best we can. Haukur (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, Unschool, I was intrigued by your original message to me. --Mrwojo (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Intrigued? In what way? I'm a bit confused.  Unschool (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)  Oh, you mean, you were wondering how you were selected?  Yes, well, as you have seen, I have given an honest accounting of this above.  Regardless of your current sentiments on the issue, feel free to weigh in at FJS.  (I don't think I can get in trouble for saying that to somebody I've already "canvassed", can I?) Unschool (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Franz Josef Strauß
Thanks for the compliment. I always thought of you as a reasonable, sane editor too. Anyways, never worry about bothering me about bringing me into discussions. I still check my watch list (all 47 pages on it, as compared to well over 400 last year) every day or two and i still make contributions now and then. I don't mind throwing my two bits in to help out. Masterhatch (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Changes
My apologies for my strong edit summary. I did not assume good faith when I ought to have and for that I apologize. I did remove the header over the other votes because I did not see that as fair, but if it is a problem, closing admins always make note of the discussion and will weigh it in their judgement. The wording was innocuous and shouldn't be a problem at all. It seems that one user who feels very strongly about imposing non-English spelling conventions was trying to find a reason to make a fuss (he himself has a non-English character in his name!). The problems caused could have gotten worse, but I moved some of the conversation back. No big deal. Merry Christmas! Charles 03:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The nonsensical outcome of this discussion is a fresh reminder of why I resolved a while back not to edit any more. At this point I'll let it go with a self-imposed restriction to articles that nobody cares about enough to have cleaned up in a year or two. I respect your concern for the reader and emphasis on making articles useful and accessible to them - I'm also amazed that so many editors think it's a Good Thing to put obstacles in the way of understanding! Also, please don't be offended if I move the barnstar out of public view. I do appreciate it and I am encouraged to work on cleanup. --Reuben (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my contentious message out of frustration. Your calm and good sportsmanship are a really impressive and positive example.  I'll go look at old cleanups now.  --Reuben (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I will give this a reasonable amount of time, for the holidays; but I do not blame you - whether what you did comes under canvassing at all is doubtful. As for James086, we shall see - I have not been pleased by his other actions. I will begin by reopening the discussion at Talk:Padan Plain, which see, and see what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Tag location
Thanks for the compliment. I just think not all tags are important enough to be on top. Some are though, but some are better placed somewhere below in the article. Some tags (in my opinion) could also better be deleted but that is quite hard. See my last failed try here. :) Garion96 (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sanctions for canvassing
On the incidents noticeboard you mentioned sanctions against you. That would absolutely not be necessary. Sanctions would only be imposed if you were a problematic user for example if you were canvassing in discussions with knowledge of WP:CANVASS, but this was an honest mistake. Infact, your apology was so swift that I think you deserve this:


 * Of course, you need not display it if you don't think it appropriate. Looking at the timestamps, I think we were typing messages to each other at the same time. I understand that people will not be happy with my closure as it is very similar to keeping the current title - which most did not want. However I think that when it is proposed again later, it will indeed be moved to the "ss" title. Hopefully it will not cause too much controversy. Just a note, I bear all responsibility for the closure, if someone were to blame you for the result that would be unacceptable; remind them that it was my decision. Merry Christmas to you too, James086 Talk &#124;  Email 06:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
From Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.

Questioning minor 1st paragraph edits?
Re: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.

I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
 * A1. Benjamin Cardozo
 * A2. Learned Hand
 * B1. John Marshall Harlan
 * B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?

Would you care to offer a comment or observation? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Lasut/Leva Patil
Hi Unschool. Thanks for your message. With regard to Lasut, only an admin can delete articles, so not being an admin, I can't delete it myself. I'm sure someone will get round to it in time. Regarding Leva Patil, some sentences appear to have been copied from the site you identified. In this case, however, if you reworded those sentences so that they were not a direct copy, that would probably be enough. The rest of the article doesn't seem to have been copied, at least from the site you found, so I wouldn't tag the page as copyvio. If you come across any other articles which you suspect are copied from copyrighted sources, you can tag them using the tag - the usage is  (substituting the URL of the suspected original source). . You can find general information on how to deal with suspected copyright violations at Copyright violations. It's possible that other websites have copied information from Wikipedia rather than the other way round, so it can sometimes be difficult to determine the original source. Where an article is a blatant violation of copyright, however, the article can be tagged for Speedy deletion. I hope this helps, and have a merry Christmas.--Michig (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Stone
Jumping in here: I have reverted Benjamin Stone (disambiguation) to JHunterJ's MOS:DAB-compliant version and left an explanation on the dab page's Talk page.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  14:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Left acknowledgement on the relevant talk pages. Thanks for the explanation. Unschool (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hijacked
It sure gets frustrating at times, but I'm hanging in there. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Leva Patil
You're right, there is room for concern about copyright violation. I tagged it for a rewrite (also because it is incomprehensible). I had a hard time making enough sense of it to put an intro on it; I was hoping someone who knew what it was about would come along and do real work on it. I think the first step is going to be to prune harshly until what is left makes sense. RJFJR (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)