![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hi Unschool, here are some factoids about the usage of eszett in German that may be relevant in future discussions. The main argument for using eszett here seems to be that replacing it with 'ss' is "incorrect." Leaving aside for a moment the question of correctness in English, there are a number of circumstances in which it's acceptable to do this even in German. Maybe you already know all this, but here are the cases I've found:
I think that number 3 is especially important. It means that even in the German language, usage of eszett is not inseverably tied to the way a name is spelled in its home country. Instead, each German standard is allowed to follow its own style, even when writing names that originally come from somewhere else. So if it's not inaccurate for the Swiss to write "Strauss" and "Wilhelmstrasse," surely English it's unreasonable to claim that it's inaccurate for English to do so. Just another angle on the problem since there doesn't seem to be much useful communication or understanding with the current approaches. -- Reuben ( talk) 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the discussion of the Eszett in that article should be archived and listed as a discussion on the use of the Eszett. That way, a user looking at the talk page isn't seeing "Archive 1" and missing the debate. Also that way, it can be linked to for reference. I would call it Talk:Franz Josef Strauss/Eszett and list it as such. For more centralized discussion, I would start a WikiProject on transliteration or diacritics or something like that. You *should* ask around. Personally, I would ask P. M. Anderson as he seems to have a better grip and more involvement in this topic than I do at this time. Charles 16:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{ prod}}" template to the article Region (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{ prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot ( talk) 21:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
your response is appreciated
-- NBahn ( talk) 07:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
At one point you stated that I had fewer than one hundred non-minor edits to my credit. Ever since then, I've been trying to figure out how exactly you located that information; I haven't been able to locate it and I am wondering if I may trouble you (if it isn't inconvenient for you, that is) for how you located that information. I must admit that I'm quite curious.
-- NBahn ( talk) 21:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I put in my opinion on the AfD. -- Merovingian ( T, C) 22:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at the current version of the Continental United States article to see if it is, to your knowledge, factually accurate? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 07:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar! I am honored. I appreciate your comments and will take them to heart.-- Cvieg ( talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Camp Daniel Boone requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
WebHamster
06:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Sorry to bother you once more, but since you took the time to help me choose a candidate for FPC from my tortoise pictures, I would like to request you to please vote for the picture here. Thanks again for your help.
Regards, Muhammad (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
There's absolutely no need to be so rude - Alison ❤ 04:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't know how I managed to screw up the coding on that. I usually haven't had problems with similar tables in the past. Whatever. I'll let it be from now on. --Kevin W. 07:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll stick around. PS- I've given up on the Ice Hockey articles though (it just wasn't fun anymore) & I'm a big hockey fan too. It's just that sometimes the arrogance of some of these foreign symbol pushers, burns me up inside. GoodDay ( talk) 01:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Great point. GoodDay ( talk) 01:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I should have saved the improvements before doing the redirecting, but I was doing three or four things at once related to that dab and wasn't thinking much about the order in which I did them. Cheers-- ShelfSkewed Talk 05:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Homeschooling WikiProject News |
![]() |
Issue One • Early March 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
News
| ||
Archives • Newsroom | ||
Newsletter written by
DiligentTerrier
and friends. Newsletter delivered by Basketball 110 |
![]() |
The Homeschooling WikiProject News |
![]() |
Issue Two • Late March 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
News
| ||
Archives • Newsroom | ||
Newsletter written by
DiligentTerrier
and friends. Newsletter delivered by Basketball 110 |
Well those future Olympics sites are full of speculation and no citations. But the pages will eventually be created. There needs to be a cap. Because I could make a page saying Kansas City wants to host the 2100 Summer Olympics, and it'll stay around, and other people will add other cities even for that way out date. last I checked 2024 was the furthest. Bids usually only start 9 years ahead of the games. (awarded 7 years in advanced.) I don't know what to do. Pages like the Superbowl, and NCAA basketball tournaments don't go too far into the future. Even with cities still bidding. I wish we could be more like that. cheers. And I like your proposal page, even if this response is very delayed.20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Moonraker0022 ( talk)
I appreciate the message you left on my talk page - thank you. Although I still believe that my actions will not skew the result appreciably, I can understand why you think it might. Either way, I hope the best decision is made for the page title and the readers! Best, Knepflerle ( talk) 14:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are you leaving? Have you seen everything we've done to the homeschooling article lately, or our Collaboration of the month nominations? - Diligent Terrier and friends 15:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Homeschooling WikiProject News |
![]() |
Issue Three • Early April 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
News
| ||
Archives • Newsroom | ||
Newsletter written by
Diligent
Terrier
(and friends). Newsletter delivered by Diligent Terrier (and friends) |
Hello. You were nice enough to make some supportive remarks on my talk page concerning excessive tagging on Wikipedia, so I wanted to let you know that an RfC has been filed on me. Please feel free to drop by and comment, if you're interested, one way or the other. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Because I, an anony, am impressed by your ability to quickly catch my own vandalisms, I award you this shiny anti-vandalism star. Just think, now that I've given it to you, I can't take it away. Congrats. 64.194.176.5 ( talk) 06:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC) | Talk 20:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
I have removed this from my user page (where it had been placed by the anon), because I think that there's a clear ethical issue with accepting awards in this manner. Kind of like the sheriff taking a bribe from the guy whom he's caught. But rather than delete it, I'll leave it here; for better or worse, it is a part of the historical record. Unschool ( talk) 06:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello there. Thanks a lot for your comments. This program was originally constructed by Hersfold, however I did make some changes as to how I do this, how I "run it", although, this is not cabalish whatsoever. Regarding the number of adoptees, there's no way I could take on another case, per this, this, this, and this (shudders). I have a high edit count, yes, but edit count isn't something that I look upon anymore. It's about the quality of our edits, and not the quantity of them. I also take a role when I can in anti-vandalism, however recently have done no reverting other than on my watchlist. I'm more into the discussing of vandalism etc. Have a listen to Episode 9, Part 3 and 4, I gave my thoughts there. And about RyRy, it was an admin who requested me adopt him. No-one else really wanted to, to be honest. There was a discussion on IRC about it, and in the admin channel. But what happens on IRC stays on IRC ;) Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Unschooler,
Please try to be more civil, as this edit borders on attacking a fellow editor (myself, in this situation). Cheers! - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit busy right now, and I don't have the time to reply now, but I don't see this discussion going anywhere, so I don't think it's necessary that I defend myself when Unschool was really the user with questionable edits. Also, why were you talking about the userbox policy? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 00:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You replied to none of this:
- Some points:
- Okay, I didn't get your exact quote correct. And while I agree with you that there is clearly a difference in what you said and the way I quoted it back, the difference is one of degree, not of logic. Yet you ignore the point I make, taking refuge in a technicality.
- Secondly, you say that I responded with an "irrelevant" story. I will presume that you actually thought that that was a story, and now gently inform you that that was what is called an analogy. It was not intended to relate an actual occurence; it is a logical device used to illustrate a point that might otherwise be opaque to the listener. As such, it was not irrelevant at all, it was making a salient point about the nature of your complaint. If this is still, in any way, unclear to you, please let me know and I will happily explain in greater detail.
- Thirdly, you disregarded my Bible verse as irrelevant. My guess, if you sincerely fail to recognize the relevance, is that you are unfamiliar with this guideline. There are many policies and guidelines with which I am unfamiliar, so I can understand if you may have missed one. This one actually came from Jimbo, though before you began editing seriously under your current username, so I'm not sure if you were around when it was the subject of much discussion. But never fear, because, unlike some other people, I don't allow the fact that there are lawyers out there telling me that I should take offense at every little thing to actually allow me to feel offended. Instead, I try to assume good faith, recognizing that, without the ability to hear a person's tone of voice or read their facial expressions, that it is very easy to mistake someone else's comment for an "attack". That is why I wait until someone calls me something like a "G*****n M*****f*****", or tell me that my "head is obviously shoved up my a**" before I presume that the other person's intent was to offend. Those are more obviously personal attacks than someone questioning the wisdom of my edits.
- DT, first of all, I had no idea who made those edits to John Holt. So, by definition, the attacks were not personal, because a personal attack is made against an individual. Of course, admitedly, you would have to take my word that I didn't go back in the edit history and find out who it was, but I'm just telling you, I didn't (and still haven't—I'm assuming that you're an honest puppy and telling me the truth, that this came across to you as a personal attack).
- More importantly, and I say this both with all sincereness, yet with total forgiveness, I found your last edit to be highly insulting. I provided you with a good faith response to a comment that you placed on my talk page, but your reply was, essentially, "I don't have time to read what you put out there. Your comments are irrelevant." That may not be how you intended it, but it came across that way to me. And to me, one who values honest discussion more than almost anything, that was the ultimate in uncivil behaviour. You come in my house, level some charges against me, and then announce that what I have to say in reply is irrelevant. Please don't start a conversation and then just turn your back on the person who decides to reply. I don't think that that's too much to ask. Unschool ( talk) 23:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
other than to say "I'm a bit busy right now, and I don't have the time to reply now, but I don't see this discussion going anywhere"
I took it as a given that you were an intelligent person, worthy of an intelligent reply, and you said "I don't have the time". Which I actually can respect, for a time. Now if you don't understand my reply, then say so. I'd be happy to explain anything that is unclear. Unschool ( talk) 21:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, for starters I think DT's a guy. You misunderstood my comment. I said that per your statement, "because a personal attack is made against an individual" Hope that helps! RC-0722 247.5/ 1 16:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I'm just writing to let you know that I have responded to your analysis of WP:WEIGHT and the first sentence at the Nixon talk page. Interesting topic! Best, Happyme22 ( talk) 04:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I am contacting you because you Supported the decision to choose Adam Smith as the first Featured Article that WikiProject Economics would work on. If you can, please help out and make this goal a reality! A discussion on this has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#The Featured Article drive is now closed. Thanks for your time! Gary King ( talk) 16:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Homeschooling WikiProject News |
![]() |
Issue Four • May 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
News
| ||
Archives • Newsroom | ||
Newsletter written by
Diligent
Terrier
(and friends). Newsletter delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot |
The message above has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot, a bot operated by Diligent Terrier.
Just wanted to let you know that changing the titles of others' talk page posts and moving entire threads to an unrelated talk page is inappropriate you way that you did it. You have done this twice now; I'm going to assume good faith for now, but I you want to debate this, please do so with the administrators at WP:AN. Thank you. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I have trouble relating your "analogy" to this situation. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 23:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-
Diligent
Terrier
(and friends) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- Diligent Terrier (and friends) 23:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There are two ways of defining an "attack", both in the real world and here, on Wikipedia. One is to define an attack as anything that the alleged attacker intended as an attack. The other is to define an attack as anything which the alleged victim perceives as an attack. Which is the better method? If we use the former, then brutal battery committed by a sociopath would not be an "attack". [I didn't think he would mind me smashing his skull in, your honor.] If we use the latter, then every minute of our time will be taken up handling complaints that involve infinitesimal, if not imaginary, offense. [Your honor, when that worker at Subway asked me if I wanted a 'six inch or footlong', I felt offended at being treated like an object of his sexual desire.]
I felt that your accusation that my edit summaries were uncivil indicated that you may fall under the latter category of people. So which do I think is better? Truth be told, we cannot rely just on one or the other. In fact, we need to recognize that most of the time, reasonable people will simply agree on what constitutes an attack or offensive behaviour.
What I was asking you to do was to re-examine my edit summaries, to which you took such offense, and dwell on them for a moment. Maybe you could even ask someone else's opinion (preferably someone with whom you do not always see eye-to-eye, yet whom you respect). Really consider whether my comments constituted anything truly uncivil and thus worth the time that you spent in coming to my talk page to complain. I truly believe that the majority of people would be surprised that you considered my comments to cross the line into uncivil behaviour. But I may be wrong.
All I know is that I ran across some stuff on John Holt that surprised me, and I expressed my surprise in my edit summaries. Was it the most neutral way to express myself? Of course not. But neither passionate feelings nor lack of neutrality automatically equate with incivility. (Yes, they can be uncivil, but they are not necessarily so. Case-by-case basis.) So why has this been worth my time? Because I believe in WP:AGF. I think you do, too, but all of us sometimes fail this most difficult of tests. You assumed uncivil intent on my part where there was none. And yeah, that got under my skin, and I wanted you to listen to my explanation. And because I place a high value on discussion, (believing that it is our best hope for discovering the truth), I was simply further irked each time you found other things to talk about.
Anyway, am I any clearer now? Unschool ( talk) 23:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you understood all that, then why did you have to make those "analogies"? You went off the subject, most likely, in order to take the negative attention off yourself. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 00:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Answers to your questions:
Hope I've answered your questions. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick question (or two) for you so I know where the conversation is going: Will you admit that the edit summary of yours that I cited in my initial post was uncivil? Do you understand why someone would take it as being uncivil? Do understand why someone might take it as a, although light, personal attack? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Unschool: I had some really good comebacks for everyone of your comments, but I just don't think we're getting anywhere when we have these petty little discussions. I would be in favor of just dropping this whole thing by now; it's already taken up enough of my time. Our discussion so far has not gotten anywhere, and you don't seem eager to admit that your original edit summary comment was uncivil. I am not about to report you for your failure to follow the civility principle, the rollback policy and the Refactoring talk pages guidelines. At first you pass it off as your reaction to the article's current rating, and then you state that your feeling could not have given you the right to act uncivilly. Then you say that you don't see how anyone could take it as a personal attack, but in my next question you go on to say that there's always someone who will interpret things in a given way. If you still have a few directly relevant questions for me that are 1) directly relevant to the current discussion and 2) that will actually help us get somewhere, then I will consider answering them if it will help us more understand each other's viewpoints. But for now, once again, I just don't see where we would be going if we continued the current discussion. So, I would like to know from you: where are you trying to get with this entire conversation? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Due to time availible, I was not able to read your entire reply, but your little discussion with RC caught my attention, and I noticed where you said that debating is a good thing. That statement confirmed what I felt all along - that you are just looking for a fight. Well, I'm not and I will no longer answer any questions related to this discussion. If there is something you really need to find out or something you think I did wrong, please take the issue to the administrators' noticeboard. If it is not important enough to go there, then we can probably just get over it, like to initially told me to do. Thank you. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Your "living person" template at
User:Unschool/The Living Person Tag is showing up as a standard template at
Category:Temporal templates. I would like to interest you in changing the category for it to [[:Category:Temporal_templates]] (with the colon preceding the category name) so this humorous user-space creation does not show up in the category.
--
Yellowdesk (
talk)
04:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you. A large percentage of High Schools are not notable; almost no elementary or middle schools are. The stub article on James Weldon Johnson Middle School was unnotable and recommended to merge into the School district's article. The editor in question appears to be sympathetic by setting up an info table, but I know of nothing notable about the subject. The school is included in the template, Duval County Public Schools. Thanks for asking. Mgreason ( talk) 17:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the article - it certainly is better now. While not really the correct way to do it I knew that it would get immediate attention and hoped that someone would fix the significant errors, as you have done. A little cheeky but quite effective in a way that discussion pages sometimes are not. Good work - a retired Wikipedian. 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Unschool, I saw your comments at WT:RFA, I was wondering if you would like me to grant you rollback rights. It does make undoing vandalism a little faster and more efficient. If you are interested just let me know! « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plot_summaries#Length_of_plot_summaries.
Plus this warning, which is created by typing in (check the editing screen)
![]() | This article's plot summary may be
too long or excessively detailed. (September 2008) |
In short, there are too many worries re: telling absolutely everything that happens in the plot.
I hope this helps. Lots42 ( talk) 09:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
cur) (last) 08:43, 26 May 2008 Luminum (Talk | contribs) (27,862 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits. The expanded bio is informative, but not notable. Please limit entries to notable character instances/involvement; We don't need to know EVERY thing he did in Alpha Flight) (undo) Lots42 ( talk) 10:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For sorting out a series of major vandal edits on the University of Southern California's article. You're actions were significant enough to prompt me to finally award a Barnstar. -- Bobak ( talk) 15:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
You seem to be doing a lot of good work, and in particular i had much the same thots as you abt the use of "the Dakotas" discussed at
Talk:The Dakotas#Expansion; IIRC i decided not to comment only bcz it would have distracted from what i had to say abt the overall problems with the article. But i'd like to urge you to re-weigh your closing misgivings abt having commented: it seems to me that altho you sort of dissed yourself for the attention you gave it, it's likely that out mutual colleague will have taken as well the message "Oops, i just wasted my time by paying attention to you!" and that, however unintentionally, you may have in effect dissed that well-intentioned colleague. Hope you'll give that some thought, and in any case, thanks and hope you continue your good service to the 'pedia.
--
Jerzy•
t
18:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
The article you created, Wilson Frost appeared to have no references, as there was no reference syntax in the article.
I tagged it as unreferenced, then I saw the references in the source, and made changes to make them appear here.
I have removed the 'unreferenced' tag.
The refs still need tidying up, maybe using a WP:CITATION template, so that they show the name, title, etc.
I hope this helps in improving the article,
Any questions, please post to my own talk page.
Regards, -- Chzz ► 02:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you're not aware of this but you're only allowed to use rollback for reverting vandalism. Note that other users have been blocked for this in the past or had their rollback privileges taken away. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith for now, but I have a hard time doing this when this is now the second time I'm warning you about refactoring comments [8]. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
(reduce indent) You should have been able to tell it had meaning by the rest of my comment. Also, I have entered conversations where everyone spoke English, and I started speaking Latin. They did not scold me, as you are attempting to do, they simply asked the meaning of my statements. However, I do not wish to continue this discussion with you, since at this point you are merely ranting, but I will leave you with this final statement: You may think I'm an idiot, but don't treat me like one. Good day, wea-ther man. RC-0722 361.0/ 1 17:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Heaven knows that I don't want to allow this to distract from things again, but I do need some enlightenment here. I do not understand why it is that what I did with RC's comments is wrong. I have often seen disruptive comments deleted entirely from talk pages, you yourself have removed comments that I have placed on your talk page, and here I have left his comments in place despite the fact that they were as disruptive to the conversation as this is to an article. All I did was to merely place a divider between his non sequitur and our conversation. I will assume good faith as well; that is, I will assume that you are not just trying to avoid closure on the conversation, and I await a lesson complete specific passages that make it clear that I am in clear violation of some policy. There is nothing in the spirit of Wikipedia that I have violated, as far as I know. Unschool ( talk) 23:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply from my talk: This is the refactoring comments policy. RC's comments were replies to certain other comments, and should be taken in the context of where they were. Moving all of them to a separate section makes him look stupid. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 17:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Per the advice of User:Five Years, I am letting this matter between us drop. Your unwillingess (or inability—it would not be right of me to presume your intent) to engage in a sincere discussion to resolve our differences was evident long ago. Only my essential belief in what I sometimes foolishly assume to be a universal intrinsic desire to seek truth kept me going, as you veered off the path into trivial accusations designed to avoid dealing with questions about your own methods. But I realize now that we do not share this same quest for honesty, and I am dropping the matter here and now.
It is with sincerity that I wish you the best in your future Wikiediting. Though I have expressed concern earlier that we may conflict on some pages of common interest, I shall avoid such conflict unless it is over a matter of huge import to the content of an article; I shall never again allow myself to be dragged into a mere philosophical discussion with you (as there is no evidence that you ever engaged on a philosophical level in this one).
My parting suggestion for you is simply this: Attempt to learn the spirit of Wikipedia's policies, not just the letter. They were created to reduce conflict, not to be brandished in the face of others. The fact that we can cite a potential policy violation does not necessarily mean that we should; judicious use of warnings is, well, judicious. The day may come when you will realize that the approach that I took in our conflict was actually (at the start, anyway) a compassionate approach. Another may come along one day with far less patience and far more clout to deal with your style of policing.
Good day, DT. Unschool ( talk) 04:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Homeschooling WikiProject News |
![]() |
Issue Five • June 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
News
| ||
Archives • Newsroom | ||
Newsletter written by
User:RC-0722. Newsletter delivered by User:RC-0722 |
Hello Unschool. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Unschool/Sandbox , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review. Gazimoff Write Read 16:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You may be right about the city limits. The City of Jacksonville does have authority over the entire county, but the beaches and Baldwin do have their own governments and their own signs telling you when you're entering or leaving them. It's a pretty minor distinction, as Jacksonville still has authority over them even within their limits, since as you say it acts as the county. I'd like to see something definite about this.
And yes I thought the statue bit was way too trivial for the lead.-- Cúchullain t/ c 16:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm cleaning it up. Before i came it was terrible. I deleted some section yes because they where a mess. I'm just trying to clean the mess. You can help me if you want. But then its goin to be in these boxes. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I noticed your recent interest in the 2000s article and wondered if you would like to join this wikiproject and help us set up standards for decades articles and improve them. Wrad ( talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I recently restored the under construction template at the Chicago Spire article. I realize it may serve to be redundant. I'm one of those people at Wikipedia who find a lot of tags redundant and annoying.
This tag, however, informs the reader that much of the information may be of a speculative nature. I think that is important. Additionally, I'm pretty sure that all of the other major skyscraper projects also carry this tag. Look at Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) or Burj Dubai as examples. If the tag shouldn't be used at Chicago Spire, it probably shouldn't be used anywhere. Consistenc is probably important. If you want to make the case about articles in general not carrying this tag, then maybe it should be discussed at the architecture wikiproject or template discussion page. Chupper ( talk) 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Good why are you asking? -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 15:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Links were removed because thier (C) Status was unclear.. Nothing in WP:El prevents the removal of links in that state. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:C#Linking_to_copyrighted_works - Basicly unless it can be shown a link is legitmate, it can go if it's suspected of being copyvio. :) Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I reverted to the vandalized version by accident. Huggle was lagging a bit. justinfr ( talk) 15:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I see you have editted the 2000s page fairly frequently. I must ask you, could you help me clean up the 1990s decade page? I am apparently in an editting war with Buddha24 and everytime I clean it up he reverts it back. I mimicked the style of the 2000s page with subpages relating to subjects like Culture of the 1990s, 1990s in video gaming, etc... but everytime I remove items they are placed back within a few hours. I cleaned it to a point where only significant events were mentioned, but the article is still fairly long even without all the pop culture and things that cluttered it before. Any suggestions to help me or any suggestions to solve an edit war. Thanks. ( Tigerghost ( talk) 03:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC))
Wow, I just found out something kinda neat. You and I, Tigerghost, both registered our respective usernames on the exact same day--September 18, 2005. Does that make us Wikitwins? Unschool ( talk) 04:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Long time no see, howdy. You seem like a smart guy so can please do me a favour and tell what grammar mistakes i have one the Qotsa discography, its a FL nominated page. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 14:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I did a history merge to fix a cut-and-paste move from Unalaska to Unalaska Island (note that the first revision of that diff was originally at the Unalaska article). I also made it so that the person who wrote the initial text of Unalaska Island ( this revision) got the credit for it in the page history, and the original writer of that text could be easily identified. To do this, I had to split *some* of the history from the page history of Unalaska and move it to Unalaska Island. I didn't merge all the history from Unalaska because there used to be an article at the Unalaska page which was text-merged into Unalaska, Alaska. Hope this helps, even though it probably makes a lot of unsense. :-) Graham 87 14:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
When tagging articles with {{
prod}}
don't forget to notify the creator,
like this. Thanks, «
Diligent Terrier
[talk]
14:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the IP edits (look at History), the edits without any references. I was actually relieved that there was also someone who is cleaning up the article aside from me. Xeltran ( talk) 05:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, it'll be at User:Unschool/Valerie Wilson talk in just a few minutes. Why do you want the talk page, though? Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not meant to be outdated by default, unless you are up to it to fix it at the end of the event - I was standing by to change it at the end, since the major difference of any online dynamic encyclopedia is to be as current and fresh aspossible. That, in particular, the fear of not having an any time current content, is deeply planted into the hearts of all readers of all encyclopaedias, and so am I trying to remove it as regarding wikipedia- makrisj
Summarizing this reversion, you said, "I'm sorry, but I can't see how that addition wasn't redundant."
Without the information eliminated by the reversion, I don't see information in the article on the Wikipedia:Accessibility ordering guidelines for lead section items (Disambiguation links, Maintenance tags, Images, Introductory text, and Navigational boxes other than Maintenance tags). Did I miss that information in the article? -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 03:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, and for responding on your own talk page. I don't get into many user_talk discussions, but the business about bouncing back and forth between the talk pages of the users involved always seems clumsy to me.
Like you, I was unfamiliar with WP:ACCESS until I came across a reference to it somewhere in the course of pursuing something else. I took a look, and concluded that it made important points re lead article sections. I then looked at WP:LEDE and, as far as I could see, these important points were not reflected there—hence my edit which you reverted. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 12:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you help me with this? I'm not a english native speaker (and this is not my home wiki), so if you think that this article should be eliminated, please let me know. Greetings, Slade ( The Joker) 00:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Howdy. I realize it was probably a joke, but could you please refrain from edit summaries like these on possibly contentious articles. The caption change was not a political statement, and your change was an improvement, but dry humor does not translate well, and I don't want people to think the caption change was a POV issue. I was the author of the original caption. --David Shankbone 04:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
David
Shankbone has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Unschool, I answered your and David's comment at User_talk:DGG#Historic House and also started a discussion on the article's talk page. Please let me know (on the article talk or at David's page - I won't be watching here) if you have any questions. TravellingCari 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
No, we are not in danger of being blocked. 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, such as that IP user continually adding incorrect sources. If you see stuff like that, you can use one of these warnings to get the user blocked quicker. Yes, as you can see, s/he is blocked for 12 hours, for violating rules. 3RR would apply, for example, if I put the population of the US is 300 million, and you put no, it is 310 million, and we keep reverting edits like that, for example. Any non vandalism dispute like that would violate 3RR. If you have any more questions, on anything, feel free to ask! Ctjf83 Talk 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I would say you calling me an "anon" is a personal attack... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.96.55 ( talk) 20:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
but I answered you :) TravellingCari 03:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I think you're doing a great job on unschooling, so I just thought I'd let you know. I'm associated with unschooling myself, and I think it's great someone who knows it's background is contributing to the article here. When I've got some time I'll help wikify it and convert all the citations into citation templates. — Byeitical ( talk · contribs) 08:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I believe that my references are now in order. Am fairly new to Wiki and thus on somewhat of a learning curve. Any further feedback would be welcomed. Cwawebber ( talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The Zapatista Party will be arresting you! Put my edits back or else! -- 202.67.101.170 ( talk) 03:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
you suggested that i get an ID. here it is, man.
thanks for your 'thanks' about my posting on Lt.Gov.Herbert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GatorNation31 ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
To show you, I went ahead and made the changes to User:Unschool/AltEdUserbox. I only added a black border around the box and made it so anyone who uses the box will automatically be placed in Category:WikiProject Alternative education members. Feel free to removed the changes or ask me to if you don't want them. Best, -- Jh12 ( talk) 13:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I can't actually work out why I reverted that edit; I think that rollback may have actually been intended for another article on the recent changes list in Huggle. I can assure you that I had no personal interests in reverting that article, and I made a quite embarrassing mistake killing around 19 good edits (spellcheck edits among them). I've done a self-revert to take it back to what the user's edit was and removed the vandal template from that user's talk page. Even if I had intended on reverting that one edit, I wouldn't have reverted 19 of them outright, so I must have made a very severe error. Thanks for pointing it out to me; I've caught a few of my mistakes too and done self-reverts, but this one slipped through the net (must've been a very big hole in the net!). Cheers. SMC ( talk) 09:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Articles that are constantly recreated can be salted, effectively protecting the article from creation. As this article had only been deleted once previously, before this particular AfD took place, I didn't see the need for such preventative measures. -- Longhair\ talk 05:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
My update of the Ferras page was completely legitimate. I'm not entirely up on Wikipedia format, but I cited a legitimate gay website interviewing the singer with several references to his being gay. The citation was not bogus. The information was not vandalism. Establishing his sexuality is not unconstructive. It's part of the singer's personal life and should be recognized just like any other entry on a gay musician. -- 97.101.1.246 ( talk) 06:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen you around in a few days and was just wondering if everything was allright? My main concern was that the last comment you posted on Talk:Abraham Lincoln was a misunderstanding. I left an apology and an explanation on the talk page but you never continued the discussion. I just wanted to point out that I typed in WP:ASF. It was not WP:AGF. They do look similar and I apologize again. I was never trying to accuse you of incivility. In fact I would like to take the opportunity to say just the opposite. You have been ever so much civil in all of our dealings together. I know that many editors are not civil in their discussions with other editors. I keep the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and sometimes follow the discussions. I have seen just about everything possible in ways of incivility, so again thanks for the complement from before. Hopefully you will get a chance to check out the link on WP:ASF and see where I was trying to go with that argument. Also check out WP:MORALIZE and WP:SUBSTANTIATE. All three of these fall under the corp policy of NPOV. I hope to see you again soon and hurry back.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 18:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
You said: "(→Feeder patterns: We already know--despite its name--that it is a middle school, because it is included in the middle school listing)" Actually its name is appropriate as it has BOTH middle and elementary levels. What I tried to make clear is that the elementary boundary does not feed into Reagan but that the middle boundary does. WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Civility Award | |
Thank you for being civil with me over my screwup when tried to fix some vandalism and instead reverted it from your good revert to the vandals version, and the thing on my user talk page. I should know better than to edit when I'm tired. Don't worry! I'm not using popups any more! W8TVI ( talk) 05:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC) |
Also, I hope you don't mind me copying your user page layout for use in my own. You have good ideas! Thank-you!
W8TVI (
talk)
05:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
No prob! I really tend to get dyslexic (well, I'm not dyslexic, but...) when reverting, and sometimes my eyes switch the diffs. I thight the bad diff was the current diff and I reverted. No apologies needed. ;-) Jonathan ( talk • contribs • am I wrong?) 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I realized I had made a mistake in the revert but I lost track of the page in Huggle. I'll try to be more careful in the future. - Vcelloho ( talk) 00:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the commendation about the Mikumi Panorama. I have one other FP, a photograph of a flower which was promoted roughly a year ago. Regards Muhammad (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
the comment was not directed toward you, but to Arcayne. He used the phrase Dickish to refer to something you said, and I took offense to it since no editor should ever attack another. I was just trying to remind him that he needs to be a bit more civil. Sorry if it came off as directed toward you.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 00:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, and I appreciate your comment about my edit. Honestly, I already have a username. I haven't logged into it in a while because I'm contemplating whether or not I want to keep editing this. Concerning those edits, I'm highly confident the individuals who reverted my edits in the past used the fact I've edited from a IP to help solidify the idea that I am merely vandalising rather than making a helpful contribution because one person in particular, Captain Infinity, is trying to use whatever ploy he can to stop me from "butchering the article." There are actually 2 extensive discussions on the discussion page, but some if not just one user wishes to ignore it. For the record, I've confirmed that I am indeed Klptyzm on the discussion page as well, if you've had doubts. 144.96.26.167 ( talk) 05:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Unschool!
I just noticed that you gave a warning on vandalism to this anon. I bust my share of vandals, but I had a hard time seeing why
this edit to
John McDonough (sports executive) constitutes vandalism. I had to scratch my head a moment and think about the proper punctuation for a moment. I checked the contribution history, and there is no sign of previous vandalism. There does not appear to be any pattern of such in the article's history. I'm not here to tell you what to do, but I would at least maybe think about rescinding that warning. Have a good evening!
LonelyBeacon (
talk)
05:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
LOL, that was really a function of using VandalProof for vandalism control rather than real editing. I got a little "excited" about the program at that point. My professional career allows for a flexible schedule, but I obviously had more time on my hands than normal. Another way of think about it is that I am a very boring person without any social life. Wikipedia is a personally addictive hobby where I now try to be a little more in control to please my wife. Thanks for asking, Cheers-- Storm Rider 17:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am not a registered editor so all of my edits and discussions are marked using my IP address. I have contributed seriously in the past from three different IP address (this is one of them), luckily I know what they are/were. You posted on the talk page of the IP address from which I usually contribute (86.9.201.247) about why don't I register. My main issue is a kind of anonymity. I believe that the value and merit of contributions to wikipedia should be judged on the basis of each individual contribution, and not because of how frequently or infrequently I contribute, or any wikipedia online persona that I develop. Having said that, wikipedia tracks all contributions from each of my IP addresses anyway for all to see together if anyone cares to. Still, the IP number is presumably not recognizable to other editors unless they are looking out for me.
Having said that, it might be nice to tie together all of my contributions under one label. If I create an account, can I collect under it all of the contributions I have already made using the three different IP addresses? Will the signatures made using four tildes on discussion pages all automatically change to my new label? Will the IP addresses on the Revision History pages also change to my new label? Can I change my label to something else later, once I have created an account? Thanks in advance for your answers. 128.232.110.231 ( talk) 14:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
message Jojhutton ( talk) 04:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC) |
I changed it because discussion in articles are supposed to be about the subject of the article, not the editors in question. If I could impose upon you to instead remove the section to my usertalk page instead, I will respond to it here. I am tempted to simply ignore the section entirely otherwise. I don't respond to attacks at all well. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The removal of the whaling section was not vandalism. I do not see how it warrants inclusion as neither of the articles support the position and make it misleading. I have further explained this position in the discussion section. [unsigned comment 06:42, November 16, 2008 by IP121.215.157.160]
Thats cool. Thanks buddy, I really have to create an account and read/follow guidelines and observe good edits so I can make better contributions in the future. I am an engineering and science major in the area of renewable energy and environmental science and have noticed some of the entries could really do with some fleshing out so I better get a far greater grasp of wikipedias guidelines and mechanics if I want to contribute. I realise now that originally I might not have gone about the edit in the right way, so the situation really alerted me to that fact. Thanks again for being reasonable about my noobishness and sorry about any confusion!
Thanks for your kind remarks on my Talk page. Have a cup of coffee on me!
JGHowes
talk
15:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Andrew Kelly (
talk) has eaten your {{
cookie}}! The cookie made them
happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug (Thanks very much, but I'll pass on the hug). for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{
cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{ subst:munch}}!
I have nominated 2008 prez election ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 19:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine. Frankly, my concern was wit the linkspam, which you have taken care of. Nice job on the article. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 05:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello there, Unschool! Today's your lucky day, because you have
new messages at
L'Aquatique's talk page.
![]() |
LOL, do you have Camp Lone Star on your watch list or something? It's a fucking stub. Why do you even give a shit? (comment from anon editor 98.200.175.214; I have moved it to this section)
Sorry, I only did it for teh lulz. I won't do it again. As much fun as Encyclopedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia are, I need Wikipedia for school. Feel free to drop by Camp Lone Star if you feel like singing over 9000 corny praise songs, talking about the 5000-year-old Earth um... theory, and participating in random, cliche "character-building" activities like orienteering. They also steal your money.
Marlith (Talk) has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{ subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Marlith (Talk) 04:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I hate my parents. :'( 118.101.38.238 ( talk) 09:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Just like you, I'm trying to get rid of vandalism. Vernon (Versus22) ( talk) 08:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
There is some discussion of the format of templates in Category:United States political leader templates such as {{ U.S. State Secretaries of State}} going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#State_by_state_100.2C000_population_city_and_mayors_templates. Feel free to discuss.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
You undid an edit that clarified that not only states but also territories had Secretaries of State that are first in line of succession and gave one example. Undoing that edit, the article now only makes reference to states, even though territories also have a similar situation. The edit did not offer a SECOND example, only ONE in reference to territories. I would suggest you take another look at your undoing of the edit which drew my attention since it refers to US territories and Puerto Rico---restoring the edit would make it clerar that there are two different types of jurisdictions, one example of each. Pr4ever ( talk) 22:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
In those jurisdictions with no Lieutenant Governor . . . the Secretary of State is sometimes first in the line of succession in the event of a gubernatorial vacancy.
All I know of Pumphrey is that he owned the stable near Ford's Theater where Booth kept his horse and would sometimes rent horses as well. He is a bit of a footnote in history and has no real interest to history other than what I have already mentioned. As to the editor, I've come across him several times in the past and he seems to be one of those Civil War article clean up types, very harmless as far as edits go. I hope that this helps you out. I can see why you might revert the edit as well, it would seem a bit odd, almost like he was adding his own name I think.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 03:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In this edit, you restored IP editor 71.175.219.211's deletion of his own comment with the edit summary why was this deleted?. Generally, there is no problem with an editor deleting his own question, at least before it spawns responses. Most likely, the editor realized the answer to his question and deleted it to save others time. TJRC ( talk) 18:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hi Unschool, here are some factoids about the usage of eszett in German that may be relevant in future discussions. The main argument for using eszett here seems to be that replacing it with 'ss' is "incorrect." Leaving aside for a moment the question of correctness in English, there are a number of circumstances in which it's acceptable to do this even in German. Maybe you already know all this, but here are the cases I've found:
I think that number 3 is especially important. It means that even in the German language, usage of eszett is not inseverably tied to the way a name is spelled in its home country. Instead, each German standard is allowed to follow its own style, even when writing names that originally come from somewhere else. So if it's not inaccurate for the Swiss to write "Strauss" and "Wilhelmstrasse," surely English it's unreasonable to claim that it's inaccurate for English to do so. Just another angle on the problem since there doesn't seem to be much useful communication or understanding with the current approaches. -- Reuben ( talk) 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the discussion of the Eszett in that article should be archived and listed as a discussion on the use of the Eszett. That way, a user looking at the talk page isn't seeing "Archive 1" and missing the debate. Also that way, it can be linked to for reference. I would call it Talk:Franz Josef Strauss/Eszett and list it as such. For more centralized discussion, I would start a WikiProject on transliteration or diacritics or something like that. You *should* ask around. Personally, I would ask P. M. Anderson as he seems to have a better grip and more involvement in this topic than I do at this time. Charles 16:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{ prod}}" template to the article Region (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{ prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot ( talk) 21:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
your response is appreciated
-- NBahn ( talk) 07:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
At one point you stated that I had fewer than one hundred non-minor edits to my credit. Ever since then, I've been trying to figure out how exactly you located that information; I haven't been able to locate it and I am wondering if I may trouble you (if it isn't inconvenient for you, that is) for how you located that information. I must admit that I'm quite curious.
-- NBahn ( talk) 21:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I put in my opinion on the AfD. -- Merovingian ( T, C) 22:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at the current version of the Continental United States article to see if it is, to your knowledge, factually accurate? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 07:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar! I am honored. I appreciate your comments and will take them to heart.-- Cvieg ( talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Camp Daniel Boone requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
WebHamster
06:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Sorry to bother you once more, but since you took the time to help me choose a candidate for FPC from my tortoise pictures, I would like to request you to please vote for the picture here. Thanks again for your help.
Regards, Muhammad (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
There's absolutely no need to be so rude - Alison ❤ 04:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't know how I managed to screw up the coding on that. I usually haven't had problems with similar tables in the past. Whatever. I'll let it be from now on. --Kevin W. 07:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll stick around. PS- I've given up on the Ice Hockey articles though (it just wasn't fun anymore) & I'm a big hockey fan too. It's just that sometimes the arrogance of some of these foreign symbol pushers, burns me up inside. GoodDay ( talk) 01:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Great point. GoodDay ( talk) 01:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I should have saved the improvements before doing the redirecting, but I was doing three or four things at once related to that dab and wasn't thinking much about the order in which I did them. Cheers-- ShelfSkewed Talk 05:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Homeschooling WikiProject News |
![]() |
Issue One • Early March 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
News
| ||
Archives • Newsroom | ||
Newsletter written by
DiligentTerrier
and friends. Newsletter delivered by Basketball 110 |
![]() |
The Homeschooling WikiProject News |
![]() |
Issue Two • Late March 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
News
| ||
Archives • Newsroom | ||
Newsletter written by
DiligentTerrier
and friends. Newsletter delivered by Basketball 110 |
Well those future Olympics sites are full of speculation and no citations. But the pages will eventually be created. There needs to be a cap. Because I could make a page saying Kansas City wants to host the 2100 Summer Olympics, and it'll stay around, and other people will add other cities even for that way out date. last I checked 2024 was the furthest. Bids usually only start 9 years ahead of the games. (awarded 7 years in advanced.) I don't know what to do. Pages like the Superbowl, and NCAA basketball tournaments don't go too far into the future. Even with cities still bidding. I wish we could be more like that. cheers. And I like your proposal page, even if this response is very delayed.20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Moonraker0022 ( talk)
I appreciate the message you left on my talk page - thank you. Although I still believe that my actions will not skew the result appreciably, I can understand why you think it might. Either way, I hope the best decision is made for the page title and the readers! Best, Knepflerle ( talk) 14:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are you leaving? Have you seen everything we've done to the homeschooling article lately, or our Collaboration of the month nominations? - Diligent Terrier and friends 15:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Homeschooling WikiProject News |
![]() |
Issue Three • Early April 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
News
| ||
Archives • Newsroom | ||
Newsletter written by
Diligent
Terrier
(and friends). Newsletter delivered by Diligent Terrier (and friends) |
Hello. You were nice enough to make some supportive remarks on my talk page concerning excessive tagging on Wikipedia, so I wanted to let you know that an RfC has been filed on me. Please feel free to drop by and comment, if you're interested, one way or the other. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Because I, an anony, am impressed by your ability to quickly catch my own vandalisms, I award you this shiny anti-vandalism star. Just think, now that I've given it to you, I can't take it away. Congrats. 64.194.176.5 ( talk) 06:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC) | Talk 20:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
I have removed this from my user page (where it had been placed by the anon), because I think that there's a clear ethical issue with accepting awards in this manner. Kind of like the sheriff taking a bribe from the guy whom he's caught. But rather than delete it, I'll leave it here; for better or worse, it is a part of the historical record. Unschool ( talk) 06:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello there. Thanks a lot for your comments. This program was originally constructed by Hersfold, however I did make some changes as to how I do this, how I "run it", although, this is not cabalish whatsoever. Regarding the number of adoptees, there's no way I could take on another case, per this, this, this, and this (shudders). I have a high edit count, yes, but edit count isn't something that I look upon anymore. It's about the quality of our edits, and not the quantity of them. I also take a role when I can in anti-vandalism, however recently have done no reverting other than on my watchlist. I'm more into the discussing of vandalism etc. Have a listen to Episode 9, Part 3 and 4, I gave my thoughts there. And about RyRy, it was an admin who requested me adopt him. No-one else really wanted to, to be honest. There was a discussion on IRC about it, and in the admin channel. But what happens on IRC stays on IRC ;) Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Unschooler,
Please try to be more civil, as this edit borders on attacking a fellow editor (myself, in this situation). Cheers! - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit busy right now, and I don't have the time to reply now, but I don't see this discussion going anywhere, so I don't think it's necessary that I defend myself when Unschool was really the user with questionable edits. Also, why were you talking about the userbox policy? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 00:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You replied to none of this:
- Some points:
- Okay, I didn't get your exact quote correct. And while I agree with you that there is clearly a difference in what you said and the way I quoted it back, the difference is one of degree, not of logic. Yet you ignore the point I make, taking refuge in a technicality.
- Secondly, you say that I responded with an "irrelevant" story. I will presume that you actually thought that that was a story, and now gently inform you that that was what is called an analogy. It was not intended to relate an actual occurence; it is a logical device used to illustrate a point that might otherwise be opaque to the listener. As such, it was not irrelevant at all, it was making a salient point about the nature of your complaint. If this is still, in any way, unclear to you, please let me know and I will happily explain in greater detail.
- Thirdly, you disregarded my Bible verse as irrelevant. My guess, if you sincerely fail to recognize the relevance, is that you are unfamiliar with this guideline. There are many policies and guidelines with which I am unfamiliar, so I can understand if you may have missed one. This one actually came from Jimbo, though before you began editing seriously under your current username, so I'm not sure if you were around when it was the subject of much discussion. But never fear, because, unlike some other people, I don't allow the fact that there are lawyers out there telling me that I should take offense at every little thing to actually allow me to feel offended. Instead, I try to assume good faith, recognizing that, without the ability to hear a person's tone of voice or read their facial expressions, that it is very easy to mistake someone else's comment for an "attack". That is why I wait until someone calls me something like a "G*****n M*****f*****", or tell me that my "head is obviously shoved up my a**" before I presume that the other person's intent was to offend. Those are more obviously personal attacks than someone questioning the wisdom of my edits.
- DT, first of all, I had no idea who made those edits to John Holt. So, by definition, the attacks were not personal, because a personal attack is made against an individual. Of course, admitedly, you would have to take my word that I didn't go back in the edit history and find out who it was, but I'm just telling you, I didn't (and still haven't—I'm assuming that you're an honest puppy and telling me the truth, that this came across to you as a personal attack).
- More importantly, and I say this both with all sincereness, yet with total forgiveness, I found your last edit to be highly insulting. I provided you with a good faith response to a comment that you placed on my talk page, but your reply was, essentially, "I don't have time to read what you put out there. Your comments are irrelevant." That may not be how you intended it, but it came across that way to me. And to me, one who values honest discussion more than almost anything, that was the ultimate in uncivil behaviour. You come in my house, level some charges against me, and then announce that what I have to say in reply is irrelevant. Please don't start a conversation and then just turn your back on the person who decides to reply. I don't think that that's too much to ask. Unschool ( talk) 23:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
other than to say "I'm a bit busy right now, and I don't have the time to reply now, but I don't see this discussion going anywhere"
I took it as a given that you were an intelligent person, worthy of an intelligent reply, and you said "I don't have the time". Which I actually can respect, for a time. Now if you don't understand my reply, then say so. I'd be happy to explain anything that is unclear. Unschool ( talk) 21:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, for starters I think DT's a guy. You misunderstood my comment. I said that per your statement, "because a personal attack is made against an individual" Hope that helps! RC-0722 247.5/ 1 16:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I'm just writing to let you know that I have responded to your analysis of WP:WEIGHT and the first sentence at the Nixon talk page. Interesting topic! Best, Happyme22 ( talk) 04:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I am contacting you because you Supported the decision to choose Adam Smith as the first Featured Article that WikiProject Economics would work on. If you can, please help out and make this goal a reality! A discussion on this has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#The Featured Article drive is now closed. Thanks for your time! Gary King ( talk) 16:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Homeschooling WikiProject News |
![]() |
Issue Four • May 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
News
| ||
Archives • Newsroom | ||
Newsletter written by
Diligent
Terrier
(and friends). Newsletter delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot |
The message above has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot, a bot operated by Diligent Terrier.
Just wanted to let you know that changing the titles of others' talk page posts and moving entire threads to an unrelated talk page is inappropriate you way that you did it. You have done this twice now; I'm going to assume good faith for now, but I you want to debate this, please do so with the administrators at WP:AN. Thank you. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I have trouble relating your "analogy" to this situation. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 23:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-
Diligent
Terrier
(and friends) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- Diligent Terrier (and friends) 23:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There are two ways of defining an "attack", both in the real world and here, on Wikipedia. One is to define an attack as anything that the alleged attacker intended as an attack. The other is to define an attack as anything which the alleged victim perceives as an attack. Which is the better method? If we use the former, then brutal battery committed by a sociopath would not be an "attack". [I didn't think he would mind me smashing his skull in, your honor.] If we use the latter, then every minute of our time will be taken up handling complaints that involve infinitesimal, if not imaginary, offense. [Your honor, when that worker at Subway asked me if I wanted a 'six inch or footlong', I felt offended at being treated like an object of his sexual desire.]
I felt that your accusation that my edit summaries were uncivil indicated that you may fall under the latter category of people. So which do I think is better? Truth be told, we cannot rely just on one or the other. In fact, we need to recognize that most of the time, reasonable people will simply agree on what constitutes an attack or offensive behaviour.
What I was asking you to do was to re-examine my edit summaries, to which you took such offense, and dwell on them for a moment. Maybe you could even ask someone else's opinion (preferably someone with whom you do not always see eye-to-eye, yet whom you respect). Really consider whether my comments constituted anything truly uncivil and thus worth the time that you spent in coming to my talk page to complain. I truly believe that the majority of people would be surprised that you considered my comments to cross the line into uncivil behaviour. But I may be wrong.
All I know is that I ran across some stuff on John Holt that surprised me, and I expressed my surprise in my edit summaries. Was it the most neutral way to express myself? Of course not. But neither passionate feelings nor lack of neutrality automatically equate with incivility. (Yes, they can be uncivil, but they are not necessarily so. Case-by-case basis.) So why has this been worth my time? Because I believe in WP:AGF. I think you do, too, but all of us sometimes fail this most difficult of tests. You assumed uncivil intent on my part where there was none. And yeah, that got under my skin, and I wanted you to listen to my explanation. And because I place a high value on discussion, (believing that it is our best hope for discovering the truth), I was simply further irked each time you found other things to talk about.
Anyway, am I any clearer now? Unschool ( talk) 23:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you understood all that, then why did you have to make those "analogies"? You went off the subject, most likely, in order to take the negative attention off yourself. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 00:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Answers to your questions:
Hope I've answered your questions. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick question (or two) for you so I know where the conversation is going: Will you admit that the edit summary of yours that I cited in my initial post was uncivil? Do you understand why someone would take it as being uncivil? Do understand why someone might take it as a, although light, personal attack? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Unschool: I had some really good comebacks for everyone of your comments, but I just don't think we're getting anywhere when we have these petty little discussions. I would be in favor of just dropping this whole thing by now; it's already taken up enough of my time. Our discussion so far has not gotten anywhere, and you don't seem eager to admit that your original edit summary comment was uncivil. I am not about to report you for your failure to follow the civility principle, the rollback policy and the Refactoring talk pages guidelines. At first you pass it off as your reaction to the article's current rating, and then you state that your feeling could not have given you the right to act uncivilly. Then you say that you don't see how anyone could take it as a personal attack, but in my next question you go on to say that there's always someone who will interpret things in a given way. If you still have a few directly relevant questions for me that are 1) directly relevant to the current discussion and 2) that will actually help us get somewhere, then I will consider answering them if it will help us more understand each other's viewpoints. But for now, once again, I just don't see where we would be going if we continued the current discussion. So, I would like to know from you: where are you trying to get with this entire conversation? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Due to time availible, I was not able to read your entire reply, but your little discussion with RC caught my attention, and I noticed where you said that debating is a good thing. That statement confirmed what I felt all along - that you are just looking for a fight. Well, I'm not and I will no longer answer any questions related to this discussion. If there is something you really need to find out or something you think I did wrong, please take the issue to the administrators' noticeboard. If it is not important enough to go there, then we can probably just get over it, like to initially told me to do. Thank you. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Your "living person" template at
User:Unschool/The Living Person Tag is showing up as a standard template at
Category:Temporal templates. I would like to interest you in changing the category for it to [[:Category:Temporal_templates]] (with the colon preceding the category name) so this humorous user-space creation does not show up in the category.
--
Yellowdesk (
talk)
04:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you. A large percentage of High Schools are not notable; almost no elementary or middle schools are. The stub article on James Weldon Johnson Middle School was unnotable and recommended to merge into the School district's article. The editor in question appears to be sympathetic by setting up an info table, but I know of nothing notable about the subject. The school is included in the template, Duval County Public Schools. Thanks for asking. Mgreason ( talk) 17:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the article - it certainly is better now. While not really the correct way to do it I knew that it would get immediate attention and hoped that someone would fix the significant errors, as you have done. A little cheeky but quite effective in a way that discussion pages sometimes are not. Good work - a retired Wikipedian. 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Unschool, I saw your comments at WT:RFA, I was wondering if you would like me to grant you rollback rights. It does make undoing vandalism a little faster and more efficient. If you are interested just let me know! « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plot_summaries#Length_of_plot_summaries.
Plus this warning, which is created by typing in (check the editing screen)
![]() | This article's plot summary may be
too long or excessively detailed. (September 2008) |
In short, there are too many worries re: telling absolutely everything that happens in the plot.
I hope this helps. Lots42 ( talk) 09:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
cur) (last) 08:43, 26 May 2008 Luminum (Talk | contribs) (27,862 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits. The expanded bio is informative, but not notable. Please limit entries to notable character instances/involvement; We don't need to know EVERY thing he did in Alpha Flight) (undo) Lots42 ( talk) 10:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For sorting out a series of major vandal edits on the University of Southern California's article. You're actions were significant enough to prompt me to finally award a Barnstar. -- Bobak ( talk) 15:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
You seem to be doing a lot of good work, and in particular i had much the same thots as you abt the use of "the Dakotas" discussed at
Talk:The Dakotas#Expansion; IIRC i decided not to comment only bcz it would have distracted from what i had to say abt the overall problems with the article. But i'd like to urge you to re-weigh your closing misgivings abt having commented: it seems to me that altho you sort of dissed yourself for the attention you gave it, it's likely that out mutual colleague will have taken as well the message "Oops, i just wasted my time by paying attention to you!" and that, however unintentionally, you may have in effect dissed that well-intentioned colleague. Hope you'll give that some thought, and in any case, thanks and hope you continue your good service to the 'pedia.
--
Jerzy•
t
18:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
The article you created, Wilson Frost appeared to have no references, as there was no reference syntax in the article.
I tagged it as unreferenced, then I saw the references in the source, and made changes to make them appear here.
I have removed the 'unreferenced' tag.
The refs still need tidying up, maybe using a WP:CITATION template, so that they show the name, title, etc.
I hope this helps in improving the article,
Any questions, please post to my own talk page.
Regards, -- Chzz ► 02:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you're not aware of this but you're only allowed to use rollback for reverting vandalism. Note that other users have been blocked for this in the past or had their rollback privileges taken away. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith for now, but I have a hard time doing this when this is now the second time I'm warning you about refactoring comments [8]. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
(reduce indent) You should have been able to tell it had meaning by the rest of my comment. Also, I have entered conversations where everyone spoke English, and I started speaking Latin. They did not scold me, as you are attempting to do, they simply asked the meaning of my statements. However, I do not wish to continue this discussion with you, since at this point you are merely ranting, but I will leave you with this final statement: You may think I'm an idiot, but don't treat me like one. Good day, wea-ther man. RC-0722 361.0/ 1 17:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Heaven knows that I don't want to allow this to distract from things again, but I do need some enlightenment here. I do not understand why it is that what I did with RC's comments is wrong. I have often seen disruptive comments deleted entirely from talk pages, you yourself have removed comments that I have placed on your talk page, and here I have left his comments in place despite the fact that they were as disruptive to the conversation as this is to an article. All I did was to merely place a divider between his non sequitur and our conversation. I will assume good faith as well; that is, I will assume that you are not just trying to avoid closure on the conversation, and I await a lesson complete specific passages that make it clear that I am in clear violation of some policy. There is nothing in the spirit of Wikipedia that I have violated, as far as I know. Unschool ( talk) 23:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply from my talk: This is the refactoring comments policy. RC's comments were replies to certain other comments, and should be taken in the context of where they were. Moving all of them to a separate section makes him look stupid. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 17:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Per the advice of User:Five Years, I am letting this matter between us drop. Your unwillingess (or inability—it would not be right of me to presume your intent) to engage in a sincere discussion to resolve our differences was evident long ago. Only my essential belief in what I sometimes foolishly assume to be a universal intrinsic desire to seek truth kept me going, as you veered off the path into trivial accusations designed to avoid dealing with questions about your own methods. But I realize now that we do not share this same quest for honesty, and I am dropping the matter here and now.
It is with sincerity that I wish you the best in your future Wikiediting. Though I have expressed concern earlier that we may conflict on some pages of common interest, I shall avoid such conflict unless it is over a matter of huge import to the content of an article; I shall never again allow myself to be dragged into a mere philosophical discussion with you (as there is no evidence that you ever engaged on a philosophical level in this one).
My parting suggestion for you is simply this: Attempt to learn the spirit of Wikipedia's policies, not just the letter. They were created to reduce conflict, not to be brandished in the face of others. The fact that we can cite a potential policy violation does not necessarily mean that we should; judicious use of warnings is, well, judicious. The day may come when you will realize that the approach that I took in our conflict was actually (at the start, anyway) a compassionate approach. Another may come along one day with far less patience and far more clout to deal with your style of policing.
Good day, DT. Unschool ( talk) 04:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Homeschooling WikiProject News |
![]() |
Issue Five • June 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
News
| ||
Archives • Newsroom | ||
Newsletter written by
User:RC-0722. Newsletter delivered by User:RC-0722 |
Hello Unschool. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Unschool/Sandbox , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review. Gazimoff Write Read 16:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You may be right about the city limits. The City of Jacksonville does have authority over the entire county, but the beaches and Baldwin do have their own governments and their own signs telling you when you're entering or leaving them. It's a pretty minor distinction, as Jacksonville still has authority over them even within their limits, since as you say it acts as the county. I'd like to see something definite about this.
And yes I thought the statue bit was way too trivial for the lead.-- Cúchullain t/ c 16:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm cleaning it up. Before i came it was terrible. I deleted some section yes because they where a mess. I'm just trying to clean the mess. You can help me if you want. But then its goin to be in these boxes. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I noticed your recent interest in the 2000s article and wondered if you would like to join this wikiproject and help us set up standards for decades articles and improve them. Wrad ( talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I recently restored the under construction template at the Chicago Spire article. I realize it may serve to be redundant. I'm one of those people at Wikipedia who find a lot of tags redundant and annoying.
This tag, however, informs the reader that much of the information may be of a speculative nature. I think that is important. Additionally, I'm pretty sure that all of the other major skyscraper projects also carry this tag. Look at Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) or Burj Dubai as examples. If the tag shouldn't be used at Chicago Spire, it probably shouldn't be used anywhere. Consistenc is probably important. If you want to make the case about articles in general not carrying this tag, then maybe it should be discussed at the architecture wikiproject or template discussion page. Chupper ( talk) 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Good why are you asking? -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 15:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Links were removed because thier (C) Status was unclear.. Nothing in WP:El prevents the removal of links in that state. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:C#Linking_to_copyrighted_works - Basicly unless it can be shown a link is legitmate, it can go if it's suspected of being copyvio. :) Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I reverted to the vandalized version by accident. Huggle was lagging a bit. justinfr ( talk) 15:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I see you have editted the 2000s page fairly frequently. I must ask you, could you help me clean up the 1990s decade page? I am apparently in an editting war with Buddha24 and everytime I clean it up he reverts it back. I mimicked the style of the 2000s page with subpages relating to subjects like Culture of the 1990s, 1990s in video gaming, etc... but everytime I remove items they are placed back within a few hours. I cleaned it to a point where only significant events were mentioned, but the article is still fairly long even without all the pop culture and things that cluttered it before. Any suggestions to help me or any suggestions to solve an edit war. Thanks. ( Tigerghost ( talk) 03:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC))
Wow, I just found out something kinda neat. You and I, Tigerghost, both registered our respective usernames on the exact same day--September 18, 2005. Does that make us Wikitwins? Unschool ( talk) 04:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Long time no see, howdy. You seem like a smart guy so can please do me a favour and tell what grammar mistakes i have one the Qotsa discography, its a FL nominated page. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 14:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I did a history merge to fix a cut-and-paste move from Unalaska to Unalaska Island (note that the first revision of that diff was originally at the Unalaska article). I also made it so that the person who wrote the initial text of Unalaska Island ( this revision) got the credit for it in the page history, and the original writer of that text could be easily identified. To do this, I had to split *some* of the history from the page history of Unalaska and move it to Unalaska Island. I didn't merge all the history from Unalaska because there used to be an article at the Unalaska page which was text-merged into Unalaska, Alaska. Hope this helps, even though it probably makes a lot of unsense. :-) Graham 87 14:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
When tagging articles with {{
prod}}
don't forget to notify the creator,
like this. Thanks, «
Diligent Terrier
[talk]
14:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the IP edits (look at History), the edits without any references. I was actually relieved that there was also someone who is cleaning up the article aside from me. Xeltran ( talk) 05:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, it'll be at User:Unschool/Valerie Wilson talk in just a few minutes. Why do you want the talk page, though? Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not meant to be outdated by default, unless you are up to it to fix it at the end of the event - I was standing by to change it at the end, since the major difference of any online dynamic encyclopedia is to be as current and fresh aspossible. That, in particular, the fear of not having an any time current content, is deeply planted into the hearts of all readers of all encyclopaedias, and so am I trying to remove it as regarding wikipedia- makrisj
Summarizing this reversion, you said, "I'm sorry, but I can't see how that addition wasn't redundant."
Without the information eliminated by the reversion, I don't see information in the article on the Wikipedia:Accessibility ordering guidelines for lead section items (Disambiguation links, Maintenance tags, Images, Introductory text, and Navigational boxes other than Maintenance tags). Did I miss that information in the article? -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 03:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, and for responding on your own talk page. I don't get into many user_talk discussions, but the business about bouncing back and forth between the talk pages of the users involved always seems clumsy to me.
Like you, I was unfamiliar with WP:ACCESS until I came across a reference to it somewhere in the course of pursuing something else. I took a look, and concluded that it made important points re lead article sections. I then looked at WP:LEDE and, as far as I could see, these important points were not reflected there—hence my edit which you reverted. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 12:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you help me with this? I'm not a english native speaker (and this is not my home wiki), so if you think that this article should be eliminated, please let me know. Greetings, Slade ( The Joker) 00:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Howdy. I realize it was probably a joke, but could you please refrain from edit summaries like these on possibly contentious articles. The caption change was not a political statement, and your change was an improvement, but dry humor does not translate well, and I don't want people to think the caption change was a POV issue. I was the author of the original caption. --David Shankbone 04:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
David
Shankbone has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Unschool, I answered your and David's comment at User_talk:DGG#Historic House and also started a discussion on the article's talk page. Please let me know (on the article talk or at David's page - I won't be watching here) if you have any questions. TravellingCari 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
No, we are not in danger of being blocked. 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, such as that IP user continually adding incorrect sources. If you see stuff like that, you can use one of these warnings to get the user blocked quicker. Yes, as you can see, s/he is blocked for 12 hours, for violating rules. 3RR would apply, for example, if I put the population of the US is 300 million, and you put no, it is 310 million, and we keep reverting edits like that, for example. Any non vandalism dispute like that would violate 3RR. If you have any more questions, on anything, feel free to ask! Ctjf83 Talk 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I would say you calling me an "anon" is a personal attack... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.96.55 ( talk) 20:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
but I answered you :) TravellingCari 03:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I think you're doing a great job on unschooling, so I just thought I'd let you know. I'm associated with unschooling myself, and I think it's great someone who knows it's background is contributing to the article here. When I've got some time I'll help wikify it and convert all the citations into citation templates. — Byeitical ( talk · contribs) 08:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I believe that my references are now in order. Am fairly new to Wiki and thus on somewhat of a learning curve. Any further feedback would be welcomed. Cwawebber ( talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The Zapatista Party will be arresting you! Put my edits back or else! -- 202.67.101.170 ( talk) 03:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
you suggested that i get an ID. here it is, man.
thanks for your 'thanks' about my posting on Lt.Gov.Herbert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GatorNation31 ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
To show you, I went ahead and made the changes to User:Unschool/AltEdUserbox. I only added a black border around the box and made it so anyone who uses the box will automatically be placed in Category:WikiProject Alternative education members. Feel free to removed the changes or ask me to if you don't want them. Best, -- Jh12 ( talk) 13:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I can't actually work out why I reverted that edit; I think that rollback may have actually been intended for another article on the recent changes list in Huggle. I can assure you that I had no personal interests in reverting that article, and I made a quite embarrassing mistake killing around 19 good edits (spellcheck edits among them). I've done a self-revert to take it back to what the user's edit was and removed the vandal template from that user's talk page. Even if I had intended on reverting that one edit, I wouldn't have reverted 19 of them outright, so I must have made a very severe error. Thanks for pointing it out to me; I've caught a few of my mistakes too and done self-reverts, but this one slipped through the net (must've been a very big hole in the net!). Cheers. SMC ( talk) 09:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Articles that are constantly recreated can be salted, effectively protecting the article from creation. As this article had only been deleted once previously, before this particular AfD took place, I didn't see the need for such preventative measures. -- Longhair\ talk 05:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
My update of the Ferras page was completely legitimate. I'm not entirely up on Wikipedia format, but I cited a legitimate gay website interviewing the singer with several references to his being gay. The citation was not bogus. The information was not vandalism. Establishing his sexuality is not unconstructive. It's part of the singer's personal life and should be recognized just like any other entry on a gay musician. -- 97.101.1.246 ( talk) 06:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen you around in a few days and was just wondering if everything was allright? My main concern was that the last comment you posted on Talk:Abraham Lincoln was a misunderstanding. I left an apology and an explanation on the talk page but you never continued the discussion. I just wanted to point out that I typed in WP:ASF. It was not WP:AGF. They do look similar and I apologize again. I was never trying to accuse you of incivility. In fact I would like to take the opportunity to say just the opposite. You have been ever so much civil in all of our dealings together. I know that many editors are not civil in their discussions with other editors. I keep the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and sometimes follow the discussions. I have seen just about everything possible in ways of incivility, so again thanks for the complement from before. Hopefully you will get a chance to check out the link on WP:ASF and see where I was trying to go with that argument. Also check out WP:MORALIZE and WP:SUBSTANTIATE. All three of these fall under the corp policy of NPOV. I hope to see you again soon and hurry back.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 18:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
You said: "(→Feeder patterns: We already know--despite its name--that it is a middle school, because it is included in the middle school listing)" Actually its name is appropriate as it has BOTH middle and elementary levels. What I tried to make clear is that the elementary boundary does not feed into Reagan but that the middle boundary does. WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Civility Award | |
Thank you for being civil with me over my screwup when tried to fix some vandalism and instead reverted it from your good revert to the vandals version, and the thing on my user talk page. I should know better than to edit when I'm tired. Don't worry! I'm not using popups any more! W8TVI ( talk) 05:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC) |
Also, I hope you don't mind me copying your user page layout for use in my own. You have good ideas! Thank-you!
W8TVI (
talk)
05:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
No prob! I really tend to get dyslexic (well, I'm not dyslexic, but...) when reverting, and sometimes my eyes switch the diffs. I thight the bad diff was the current diff and I reverted. No apologies needed. ;-) Jonathan ( talk • contribs • am I wrong?) 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I realized I had made a mistake in the revert but I lost track of the page in Huggle. I'll try to be more careful in the future. - Vcelloho ( talk) 00:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the commendation about the Mikumi Panorama. I have one other FP, a photograph of a flower which was promoted roughly a year ago. Regards Muhammad (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
the comment was not directed toward you, but to Arcayne. He used the phrase Dickish to refer to something you said, and I took offense to it since no editor should ever attack another. I was just trying to remind him that he needs to be a bit more civil. Sorry if it came off as directed toward you.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 00:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, and I appreciate your comment about my edit. Honestly, I already have a username. I haven't logged into it in a while because I'm contemplating whether or not I want to keep editing this. Concerning those edits, I'm highly confident the individuals who reverted my edits in the past used the fact I've edited from a IP to help solidify the idea that I am merely vandalising rather than making a helpful contribution because one person in particular, Captain Infinity, is trying to use whatever ploy he can to stop me from "butchering the article." There are actually 2 extensive discussions on the discussion page, but some if not just one user wishes to ignore it. For the record, I've confirmed that I am indeed Klptyzm on the discussion page as well, if you've had doubts. 144.96.26.167 ( talk) 05:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Unschool!
I just noticed that you gave a warning on vandalism to this anon. I bust my share of vandals, but I had a hard time seeing why
this edit to
John McDonough (sports executive) constitutes vandalism. I had to scratch my head a moment and think about the proper punctuation for a moment. I checked the contribution history, and there is no sign of previous vandalism. There does not appear to be any pattern of such in the article's history. I'm not here to tell you what to do, but I would at least maybe think about rescinding that warning. Have a good evening!
LonelyBeacon (
talk)
05:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
LOL, that was really a function of using VandalProof for vandalism control rather than real editing. I got a little "excited" about the program at that point. My professional career allows for a flexible schedule, but I obviously had more time on my hands than normal. Another way of think about it is that I am a very boring person without any social life. Wikipedia is a personally addictive hobby where I now try to be a little more in control to please my wife. Thanks for asking, Cheers-- Storm Rider 17:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am not a registered editor so all of my edits and discussions are marked using my IP address. I have contributed seriously in the past from three different IP address (this is one of them), luckily I know what they are/were. You posted on the talk page of the IP address from which I usually contribute (86.9.201.247) about why don't I register. My main issue is a kind of anonymity. I believe that the value and merit of contributions to wikipedia should be judged on the basis of each individual contribution, and not because of how frequently or infrequently I contribute, or any wikipedia online persona that I develop. Having said that, wikipedia tracks all contributions from each of my IP addresses anyway for all to see together if anyone cares to. Still, the IP number is presumably not recognizable to other editors unless they are looking out for me.
Having said that, it might be nice to tie together all of my contributions under one label. If I create an account, can I collect under it all of the contributions I have already made using the three different IP addresses? Will the signatures made using four tildes on discussion pages all automatically change to my new label? Will the IP addresses on the Revision History pages also change to my new label? Can I change my label to something else later, once I have created an account? Thanks in advance for your answers. 128.232.110.231 ( talk) 14:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
message Jojhutton ( talk) 04:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC) |
I changed it because discussion in articles are supposed to be about the subject of the article, not the editors in question. If I could impose upon you to instead remove the section to my usertalk page instead, I will respond to it here. I am tempted to simply ignore the section entirely otherwise. I don't respond to attacks at all well. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The removal of the whaling section was not vandalism. I do not see how it warrants inclusion as neither of the articles support the position and make it misleading. I have further explained this position in the discussion section. [unsigned comment 06:42, November 16, 2008 by IP121.215.157.160]
Thats cool. Thanks buddy, I really have to create an account and read/follow guidelines and observe good edits so I can make better contributions in the future. I am an engineering and science major in the area of renewable energy and environmental science and have noticed some of the entries could really do with some fleshing out so I better get a far greater grasp of wikipedias guidelines and mechanics if I want to contribute. I realise now that originally I might not have gone about the edit in the right way, so the situation really alerted me to that fact. Thanks again for being reasonable about my noobishness and sorry about any confusion!
Thanks for your kind remarks on my Talk page. Have a cup of coffee on me!
JGHowes
talk
15:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Andrew Kelly (
talk) has eaten your {{
cookie}}! The cookie made them
happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug (Thanks very much, but I'll pass on the hug). for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{
cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{ subst:munch}}!
I have nominated 2008 prez election ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 19:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine. Frankly, my concern was wit the linkspam, which you have taken care of. Nice job on the article. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 05:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello there, Unschool! Today's your lucky day, because you have
new messages at
L'Aquatique's talk page.
![]() |
LOL, do you have Camp Lone Star on your watch list or something? It's a fucking stub. Why do you even give a shit? (comment from anon editor 98.200.175.214; I have moved it to this section)
Sorry, I only did it for teh lulz. I won't do it again. As much fun as Encyclopedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia are, I need Wikipedia for school. Feel free to drop by Camp Lone Star if you feel like singing over 9000 corny praise songs, talking about the 5000-year-old Earth um... theory, and participating in random, cliche "character-building" activities like orienteering. They also steal your money.
Marlith (Talk) has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{ subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Marlith (Talk) 04:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I hate my parents. :'( 118.101.38.238 ( talk) 09:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Just like you, I'm trying to get rid of vandalism. Vernon (Versus22) ( talk) 08:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
There is some discussion of the format of templates in Category:United States political leader templates such as {{ U.S. State Secretaries of State}} going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#State_by_state_100.2C000_population_city_and_mayors_templates. Feel free to discuss.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
You undid an edit that clarified that not only states but also territories had Secretaries of State that are first in line of succession and gave one example. Undoing that edit, the article now only makes reference to states, even though territories also have a similar situation. The edit did not offer a SECOND example, only ONE in reference to territories. I would suggest you take another look at your undoing of the edit which drew my attention since it refers to US territories and Puerto Rico---restoring the edit would make it clerar that there are two different types of jurisdictions, one example of each. Pr4ever ( talk) 22:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
In those jurisdictions with no Lieutenant Governor . . . the Secretary of State is sometimes first in the line of succession in the event of a gubernatorial vacancy.
All I know of Pumphrey is that he owned the stable near Ford's Theater where Booth kept his horse and would sometimes rent horses as well. He is a bit of a footnote in history and has no real interest to history other than what I have already mentioned. As to the editor, I've come across him several times in the past and he seems to be one of those Civil War article clean up types, very harmless as far as edits go. I hope that this helps you out. I can see why you might revert the edit as well, it would seem a bit odd, almost like he was adding his own name I think.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 03:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In this edit, you restored IP editor 71.175.219.211's deletion of his own comment with the edit summary why was this deleted?. Generally, there is no problem with an editor deleting his own question, at least before it spawns responses. Most likely, the editor realized the answer to his question and deleted it to save others time. TJRC ( talk) 18:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)