User talk:Wahoofive/archive

Welcome message
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 06:29, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Kibbutz
I got the source of the "one third" quotation. Konstantin Pobedonostsev.Dinopup 00:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Test --Wahoofive | Talk 03:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do not edit votes which are not yours
See this? Don't do it again. Ever. Thanks. Bye. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 01:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Radio mast articles
I am contacting you because you have contributed to the VfD discussion on radio mast articles. I just wanted to let you know that a proposal has been put forth at Deletion policy/Masts to address these articles en masse. Your comments are welcome. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pandeism - 1833

 * I just found conclusive evidence of the use of the term "Pandeism" dating back to 1833, being used by Godfrey Higgins, a follower of John Toland, the creator of pantheism.. The term is used in a book written by Higgins called the Anacalypsis. -- 8^D BD2412gab 10:50, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Disambiguation models
That's good - I dunno where either - I'm tempted to shift towards a subpage of Disambiguation but Rick reckons otherwise so I won't make the subpage yet. I can see where he's getting at with the style thing, so if we want to stick it at Manual of Style I won't complain. (dropped note on Rick's page too) User_talk:Neonumbers/Neonumbers 05:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Deletion policy/Masts
The discussion has run its course, and with 22-to-6 votes I'd say there is enough consensus to implement Ten's merging proposal. I've closed the discussion and put up some conclusions as such. Could you please take a quick look at it and indicate on its talk page whether you agree? Yours, Radiant_* 09:02, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

re: Disambiguation links
Excellent. I was hoping there was someplace better to put that comment. Thank you for the link. Rossami (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Homeschooling
Dear Wahoofive, I have just found all of this, and as I am new to Wikipedia, I first wish to apologize for probably being a pain in the neck over the past few days. I really didn't mean to start an 'edit war' or to promote a given link, but wanted to balance the bias on the page.

I appreciate your keeping my edits adding in some different homeschooling methods -- since only conservative Christian Trivium and Unschooling seemed to be represented when I started. I keep moving up eclectic is because most homeschoolers use an eclectic approach blending the best of multiple methods. Organized curricula is a resource, but using it alone is not usually done--except by Classical Christian homeschoolers or newbies.

I tried to add links - NHEN simply doesn't represent homeschooling well. They put forth a political agenda and list support groups, but the only very limited resources available on their site are paid for by advertisers or "selected." Perhaps you were not aware of that.

Sites like A to Z Home's Cool represent a wide variety of views. That is my opinion (I'm not affiliated with them), but I think I represent homeschoolers fairly well since if you GOOGLE homeschooling, AtoZ is the 2nd link today, NHEN appears as number 74. On AtoZ they post information for free, and while they take advertising, their listings and definitions are not biased.

Then it comes to HSLDA and Old Schoolhouse -- both completely commercial enterprises forwarding their "Christian worldview." I'm not asking you to remove them, just balance them. Less biased information on legalities is on both NHEN and AtoZ.

So I think your intention of minimizing links is good, or you'll have hundreds, but the problem in limiting is in choosing unbiased links that represent the huge variety of views? ~A Homeschool Mom
 * What I'm trying to avoid is links which are primarily "how to" sites. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wahoofive,

I think that homeschooling is something that is done and that by definition it is not something that any organization can control. That is why groups like NHEN and HSLDA are ineffective. If you plan to not allow "how to" then you are not helping the listing. However, if that is just how you feel and your mind will not be changed, I would strongly recommend that you remove HSLDA and Old Schoolhouse, if not just all links. Perhaps links should be on the different methods pages. Right now your page is way, way too biased. If you are a fundamentalist Christian trying to protect the "Christian worldview" on the homeschooling page, I'm very sorry but that is inappropriate.

If you are unaware of this bias, then please correct it (for more information see these two links: Old Schoolhouse's statement of faith: http://www.thehomeschoolmagazine.com/about_us/statement_of_faith.php AboutHSLA from their website: http://www.hslda.org/about/default.asp

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a Christian-biased dictionary. I'm sure that Wikipedia's moderators will feel the same way.

I am now removing those two links.

Disambiguation/Style
I wouldn't have a clue if eleven votes is enough; common sense tells me no but I don't know how many votes is considered "enough". I'm tempted to extend voting.

Good luck with your reformat - hope it works. User talk:Neonumbers/Neonumbers 08:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all your hard work with developing and implementing the proposal. I'm sorry I couldn't help out much - I've had other (non-Wikipedian) things to do - but hopefully this style will become a well-known guide like the other Manuals of Style have.


 * Perhaps, now that it is in the manual itself, it has more of the limelight and will attract more attention - so maybe from here on we might find more than eleven people wanting to give a for/against view. I'm going to archive the current discussion page and write something on its recent introduction.  I reckon that'd be the next step - as well as, of course, cleaning up the current ones.


 * Thanks again for your efforts. User_talk:Neonumbers/Neonumbers 11:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had a look at your revision and I see there's some work yet - but I agree, the page could do with a rewrite (perhaps it started good and grew and grew?). I have a few suggestions, but I figure you've probably already thought of them so I won't say them or edit the page. Happy revising, User_talk:Neonumbers/Neonumbers 11:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First name dab pages
It sounds like you are planning to take some action. If you are, announce that you are taking that action on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, where it will be subject to further discussion, no doubt. Thanks for informing me first this time, although I do wish you had not made (incorrect) suppositions on Village pump (policy) about what my "main motivation" supposedly was. &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 00:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

This User
You seem to have taken affront at a new user voting. My User name is 0001, you will refer to me as such. I have as much a right to vote as you. I got a User name today, that's right. I edited many posts under my previous anonymous status, a status which is just as valid mind you. Is it your job to tell everybody 'I only did this' or 'I only have edited that'? You want me to forward a list of my former IP's so you can see my months long contribution...it's irrelevant, any user, be they ten minutes new to wiki or years old veterans have the right for one vote. As a matter of fact this right is used to advertise and encourage people to register, and is listed as one of the many benefits. If I registered today it by no means indicates I haven't been an avid reader of wiki or a contributer anonymously under my IP address.I can see some other has complained to you for editing votes that are not yours too. Perhaps you should stick to commenting on the task at hand, not the 'history' of users whose real history you know nothing about. Same as what RadMan said...don't do it again. Ever. --0001 08:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Votes_for_deletion/ArtistShare

 * I have added a Keep vote and a comment on the VfD. If you could take a moment and decide whether or not you think it's enough to change your vote I'd appreciate it.  Wikibofh 23:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley
Just for your information. Administrator Ed Poor has recommended to create a new article on Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley. As it is a fact that these claims exist, I think it is a fair compromise to exclude this material from the main article and put it in this new article. The problem is that most Elvis fans do not like these claims and would frequently delete them from the main article on Elvis Presley. Onefortyone 17:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)