User talk:Unschool

Region (disambiguation)

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

I left a comment for you on AfD

your response is appreciated

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

A technical question

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

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

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

Recombinant text

• If you believe the author of the article is the same Michael Allan who all the references point to, then by all means bring it up. I'm not sure if WP:OR is a valid argument since his work seems to have been published, but you can definitely raise WP:COI issues. JuJube (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Your reasoning seems perfectly acceptable to bring the article to AfD. You might want to do a quickie search on Google (including Books and Scholar) to see if there are any reliable third-party sources on the subject first before actually nominating the article. If, in a good faith attempt (which on Google, for the sake of AfD, checking the two additional searches I mentioned along with a regular Google search, would be a search of 5-10 minutes maximum) you can't find anything, then be bold and go ahead and nominate the article. LaMenta3 (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think this article should be brought to AfD. Many references are self-published and the others don't seem to refer to this 'recombinant text' idea. By the way, putting messages on multiple users' talk pages to demonstrate the same idea is often frowned upon - see WP:CANVASS.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• The author says himself that the article is original research. In my experience, this article's only hope is to be merged into another article such as collaborative editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• The article clearly breaches WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. It is dressed up WP:OR and possibly WP:SOAP. The author is pushing his original ideas, contributing his own work, and citing his own website. It fails WP:COS as not published in a reputable or peer-reviewed academic source. The term is use, but I question whether Allan invented it as he claims. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Saw your note on User talk:EEMIV. In addition to WP:CANVASS, please see also Wikipedia:Consensus#"Asking the other parent". What's worse: You did not post to the article talk page or notify User:Michael Allan, who is being pretty much fully straightforward about his own COI, which is considerably better (and deserves corresponding consideration) than when someone is hiding their COI. As to the proposed deletion: The issue seems to already have come up.[1] On the grounds that neither COI (particularly a well-handled) nor OR (which it isn't, since most of it has indeed been published) are part of Wikipedia:Deletion policy, I would be strongly opposed to deletion. If you feel there are particular issues with the article that need to be addressed, do it at the article talk page. If you think COI or OR pose a problem on the article (they are not by and of themselves problems in each and every case) that cannot be resolved at the article talk page, seek out the proper venues, like e.g. WP:COI/N or seek input through an WP:RfC. User:Dorftrottel 12:39, January 12, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok. Btw, regarding your question "Have two sockpuppets ever had such different personalities?"[2]: See User:Dorftrottel/disclosure and #Anakin_Skywalker... User:Dorftrottel 16:29, January 12, 2008

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

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

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

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

Continental United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: User_talk:Cvieg Nice work

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

Speedy deletion of Camp Daniel Boone

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

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

FPC Again

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

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

Theo van Gogh (film director)

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Homeschooling

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

Politicians list

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

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

English usage

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

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

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

Home Sweet Home

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

Homeschooling Newsletter

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

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

The Olympics... ho-hum...

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

The 'glockner

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

WikiProject Homeschooling

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

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

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

WikiProject Homeschooling Early April 2008 Newsletter

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

An RfC you might be interested in

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

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

Barnstar from anon vandal

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

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

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

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

Uncivil edits

Hi Unschooler,

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

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

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

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

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

Some points:

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

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

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

Your comment: "So, by definition, the attacks were not personal, because a personal attack is made against an individual" My reply: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" [3] Also, I fail to how your talk page is your "house" You do not own your talk page, per this guideline.Now, I would highly suggest we drop this discussion and continue improving/writing the encyclopedia. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 23:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You replied to none of this:

Some points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Nixon resignation

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

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

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

WikiProject Homeschooling May 2008 Newsletter

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

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

Refactoring comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is an attack?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just wanted to let you know that when you continually post in the same old section of my talk page[4] I am very unlikely to notice it since I'm usually only on Wikipedia once a day, and check my messages from the bottom. Please assume good faith and know that during that whole discussion I have never purposely ignored you. (Just so you know, I will be offline for a few days after this reply, and I if do get online, I won't be able to answer you next reply.) Maybe I'm still missing something, but where are your straightforward questions? If what you're trying to do is get me to take back my initial comment, know that I stand by it 100%. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answers to your questions:

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

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

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

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

Clearly not.

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

Clearly not.

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

Clearly not.

• Threats

Clearly not.

• Insulting or disparaging an editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:RC-0722's very own section for whatever he wants to say!

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

Your "living person" template

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

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

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

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

Duval County Public Schools

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

NFL Draft

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

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

Rollback?

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

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

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

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

Not knowing about these posts, I saw your comments at WT:RFA, checked your user rights, assumed that you already had rollback and didn't know it, and made this post: [5]. I only mention it here because I linked to Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Check that link out for a quick walk through of how to use rollback--it really is easy. Good luck, Darkspots (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Overly Long Plot Summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barnstar

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

Civility

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

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

Wilson Frost

Hi,

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

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

I have removed the 'unreferenced' tag.

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

I hope this helps in improving the article,

Any questions, please post to my own talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rollback abuse

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

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

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

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