User talk:Unschool

The Voice (Project)

Nice job salvaging this and going all out to find credible sources. You changed my mind in the AfD discussion, which doesn't happen too often! :) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

With no hyperbole or sarcasm, believe me when I say that that's one of the highest compliments I've received in my three years editing Wikipedia. A Happy New Year to you, RandomHumanoid. Unschool 18:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Unschool. You have new messages at MuZemike's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Unschool. You have new messages at Manadude2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Isaac Asimov

The Great Master making psychohistoric predictions about his planned posthumous project, the Wikipedia Galactica, to a young Mensan.

You have just falsely claimed I made a bad edit, when I actually improved the article in question - please read my reply to you on my talk page. I cannot see why you think I did wrong; please revert your revert of my edit. F W Nietzsche (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, F W Nietzsche, I was mistaken, and have made the change to the article. What I saw in my quick glance was that you a) had removed a category, and b) had inserted the AIDS-related death. (Insertions of AIDS issues into celebrity articles is an extremely common sort of thing for vandals to place in articles). My erroneous revert would not have happened had I a) taken time to see how your edit summary explained what you had done, and b) re-read the article to find out that he had in fact died of AIDS-related illness (something which I had never heard when he died, and now that I have read the article, I know why) . So, for the record, you were 100% correct, I was 100% wrong. I also want to compliment you for taking the time to explain this on your talk page the way you did. Unschool 15:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to drop in uninvited, but I thought that you might find the photograph in this sandbox to be of interest, as it shows me with Isaac Asimov back in '81. :-) Happy Editing! — 72.75.108.10 (talk · contribs) _{16:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)}

Re: Barnstar

Thankyou very much - it's nice to be appreciated. Happy new year.--Michig (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles C. Beaman

Hello, Unschool. You have new messages at Star Mississippi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Voice (Bible translation)

Hello, Unschool …

Thnx fer the merge/move with The Voice (Bible translation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after this AfD was closed with No consensus; (default keep) … I put some lipstick on it, i.e., I fixed up the one valid WP:RS with a {{Cite news}} to add verisimilitude, and now it is time for me to MOVE ON. :-)

Happy Editing! — 72.75.108.10 (talk · contribs) _{16:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)}

I can certainly see that you've got a more deft touch than I with those references. That's one part of this work that I don't like doing (formatting citations). Thanks for prettying up the old sow for me. Unschool 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm jealous of your getting to meet old muttonchops; he was my favorite author for the last 20 years of his life. Is it okay if I steal your picture (see above). Unschool 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's all good … I don't use that account for editing any longer … and thnx fer letting me know that Lipstick on a pig now has an article to which I can wikilink. :-) — 72.75.108.10 (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with Secretaries of State

I'm not sure I understand how should I include PR's new Secretary of State in the listing. When you reverted the first time, I thought you meant you wanted him listed after the states, instead of alphabetically between PA an RI, and proceeded to do that. After the second friendly revert, I'm not sure. Any technical help is appreciated. Thanks! Pr4ever (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The governors' template includes a separate heading, which is important, because the average American barely knows the states, let alone the territories. Do you see what I mean? Unschool 13:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve Pajcic

He's already in the Category:Members of the Florida House of Representatives subcategory. A category like Category:Florida politicians shouldn't directly contain anybody who's already in one or more of its own subcategories. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for helping me understand. Unschool 20:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. There's a long history of people being inconsistent about it — some articles got double-filed, others didn't, and still others got filed only in the basic parent category instead of the subcategories. So right now, I'm actually going through all of the state categories one by one to clean them up systematically. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your edit summary

I'm not really sure that's the way journalists do it, as you say in your edit summary. Really, the season record is what's used to talk about past teams. "Coming off an 11-5 season..." and so on. You rarely would hear "Coming off a 14-5 season."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that's the way journalists do it. Really? For your perusal: [1], [2], [3], [4], etc, etc. I didn't have to pick and choose those, those were literally the first four sources I went to. I continued, but could not find one single source that did it the way you assert is normal.

However, quite frankly, I prefer having us list the regular season record, because I think it makes it easier to compare seasons if everyone is evaluated on an equal number of games. But please don't go around pretending that no one includes the playoffs in a team's season record. Frankly, I've never seen it done anywhere else with the exception of when they are discussing each team's schedule the following year. Unschool 07:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well when you said the journalists do it, I thought you mean in writing. In an article referring to a team's previous season, you really would never use the overall record, but rather the season one, like in the example I gave above.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I only meant what I said, and what I said is borne out by literally hundreds of stories filed this weekend. And it is in writing, which I would think you had realized, since you read them (unless you were accessing the audio versions of those stories produced for the blind—I cannot discount that possibility, my own wife is a major consumer of such materials). And no, you are also mistaken that one would "never" use it about previous seasons, as I have read more references than I can remember to the 17-0 1972 Miami Dolphins and 18-1 1985 Chicago Bears. Anyway, the point is moot, since we both apparently like things the way they are. Unschool 07:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You aren't understanding me. Teams like the '72 Dolphins, '85 Bears, '07 Patriots are special cases. They have the full records attached to their names because of the rarity. They have the records attached because it is likely that record is the very topic of the article or at least plays a significant part of it, where as that's not usually the case when writing a general article and referencing a team's record the previous year.

That makes a lot of sense—I can see that happening, though I've not paid enough attention to be able to personally attest to it. Unschool 07:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If a team goes 11-5 and wins two playoff games before losing a third, you will not never hear a reporter a year say they are coming off a 13-6 season or went 13-6 the year before. It's always the regular season record in those cases.

Also, you might want to try to coming off so much as a dick. Just a thought.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that certainly seems to be one possibility (that I'm not understanding you). I do want to understand—I positively hate leaving things unresolved or misunderstood. Could you give it one more try? I've certainly attempted to make myself as clear as possible, and I'd want you to do the same. Unschool 07:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Where in the hell do you get off saying that I'm being a dick? I'm the one who a) provided citations, not naked assertions of "never this" without backing, b) indicated that the point is largely moot because I like the way you tell me that Wikipedia does things on this matter. Look, you may very well be correct about what journalists generally do in this matter. I'm under no delusions of being an expert on this matter, and this is not an area in Wikipedia where I spend a significant amount of time. I just gave you my honest impressions and then provided some citations and examples (with which you have acknowledged familiarity), that's all I've done. And frankly, though I hate to pat myself on the back for this, not only have I not been a dick, I've kept good faith in mind by not speaking derisively about the fact that you have not responded with any kind of backing for what you assert is normal, other than your word. I believe that you may very well be correct about that—I don't know and I know I don't know—I just was telling you how it appeared to me and everything that I found online backed me up, and despite that, I never said that you were wrong, I never said that you were in violation of WP:V, or anything like that. I was just talking. I sure hope you wake up on the right side of the bed tomorrow. Unschool 07:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris is right. That's how it's always been done, even in other sports. The playoffs are a whole different animal, and the "playoff finish" field lists all of the wins/losses in the playoffs. Pats1 ^T/C 11:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do have expertise in this area, and my recommendation is that you forget about it and move on. It will save all of us a headache and wasted time. The longer it's drawn out, the worse it will get. Let's just end it here. Pats1 ^T/C 01:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I was looking in his archive and see that he just has a bit of an irascible personality, so I won't take it as anything personal. Please feel free to delete my comments from your talk page so as to not stir things up further. Unschool 01:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, and Chris will continue to be a valuable asset to WP:NFL. Pats1 ^T/C 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true. Perfect personalities are obviously not necessary to be a positive contributor to this project; yours truly being exhibit #1. Unschool 01:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Back from the grave

I've tagged it for CSD G4 to get the opinion of another admin. Thanks for letting me know about the article. Regards, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Barnstars

Where did you get those cool barnstars? Computer97 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the one on my user page? They come from other editors. See, like below this post. Unschool 04:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your diligent service to WikiProject Wikipedia Awards. Keep up the good work! Eustress (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you very much, though it's really not deserved. I've never so much as uploaded or created or even edited a single image, let alone add anything to the Barnstar project. All I've done is try to organize things a bit and keep them that way. But I nonetheless am extremely appreciative and flattered that anyone noticed. Thank you. Unschool 04:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Unschool. You have new messages at Manadude2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gibraltar passport

I think that has been clarified. --Gibnews (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. I just hate to accidentally label someone a vandal when they might only be ignorant. Unschool 02:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Or make typos, well spotted. --Gibnews (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

boyce

hey, that thread isn't about Boyce! You replied in the wrong place. Would you move your reply to the FAC? Thanks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm totally confused. You posted at WP:LEDE about ledes in general, and Boyce in particular. I replied at WP:LEDE, as well as your talk page, and made an edit to Boyce per our mutual comments. What does this have to do with FAC? Unschool 07:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Because Boyce is now at FAC. :-) I stole one of your userboxen and put it on my bio page. I'm gonna be bold an edit WP:LEAD now. Thanks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reincarnation

I just wanted to let you know that the deleted article has been reborn as Black presidential candidates in the United States and Black president in popular culture of the United States. Thank you for your comment and encouragement. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already written about it over at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 26. Good luck. Unschool 07:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

WikiThanks

Thank you for your contributions to the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame. See you in the AfD trenches! Ikip (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hello again, Unschool ... just a "heads up" that my IP has changed again, in case you care to wikistalk me and my edits, just to keep me honest. :-) Happy Editing! — 138.88.32.143 (talk · contribs) _{22:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)}

Thank you (vandal warning to IP)

Thanks for posting that first warning at that IP talk page. I was going to do it, but I had loading problems. Regards, --Versus22 _talk 07:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We're all in this together. Unschool 07:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Phagwara and Twinkle

I reverted your reversion at Phagwara. Edit summaries are not the be all and end all. In fact sneaky vandals / POV - Pushers do falsify them, so it is important that you actually look at the diffs. In fact when there is a string of edits it is important to look at the overall diff. In this case the anon made very constructive edits - removing a lot of material which should have been removed a long time ago. I just hope that you quick reversion did not scare a new editor away. Agathoclea (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I have no problem with your revert of my reversion. If you are comfortable with the current version, that's fine with me. Nothing I said could be reasonably interpreted as claiming that the changes were destructive of the article. I saw material removed, without explanation, and restored it. It's not what I always do; if the subject is something of a world that I do not understand at all (videogames, anime, opera), I will leave it alone. But sometimes I do feel comfortable reverting an edit even without expertise, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

For the record, I did review the overall diff, but will gladly admit that I did not study it sufficiently to make a solid determination as to whether the article came out better or not. Now, if that had been all I had done, you might have a point about scaring off a new editor. But I think your comments, given what I did do, are unfair. Note:

• I did not label the comments as "vandalism", I specifically (even though this was not at all clear to me) labeled them as "good faith" edits.
• I added to my edit summary a specific message that the editor may have had good intentions.
• I left a 100% friendly and positive welcome message on the editor's talk page.
• I left a friendly explanation of the importance of edit summaries on the user's talk page, with a link to reading more about them.

You may regard me as lazy for not thoroughly investigating the article's change, and you're entitled to that opinion. But if every person out there fighting vandals completely read over every unsummarized removal of information from our articles, then we'd probably get about 5% of the work done that is currently getting done. What I wonder is how many of the editors who would have reverted as I did tonight, would also have taken the extra steps that I took in order to make the editor feel welcome? Unless one feels that teaching the newbies is mutually exclusive with making them feel welcome, I don't see how I could be faulted for my interaction with this editor.

Oh, and of course you are correct, that edit summaries are not the be all and end all. I'm well aware that vandals can use edit summaries to try to hide their work. So what's your point? That summaries are worthless? I doubt you believe that, since you use them so responsibly yourself. And don't you want new editors learning to use them?

By no means do I think that I'm the most perfect greeter of newbies. If you still think I'm wrong, okay, I'm still listening. But I won't deny that your comments stuck in my craw when I felt that I was, on the whole, being pretty reasonable. Like I said, if you still think I'm off base, go ahead and tell me what else you would have me do. I haven't been here too long to still be learning. Unschool 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this is just a thought. Since you were better able than me to determine that the anon did make a positive contribution to the article, how about stopping by his/her talk page and thanking them? Unschool 10:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point - I actually got distracted after checking the timestamps of his/her contributions against your message. I'll be back shortly to address the rest of your comments. Agathoclea (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The sad situation of vandal-fighting as you rightly see it is that we do have to make decisions of subjects that is outside our expertise. I noticed your edit summary and investigated on the basis of that. You rightly identified it as a good faith edit and I feel it should not have been reverted. You were right to leave a message though and I would have added the point at the time that although his edits were constructive they added an extra workload for the editors reviewing. I did not want to startle you. I am just aware, that Twinkle Huggle and the like make it very easy to get carried away and while doing a great lot of good can cause some damage along the way. If you have a similar situation in the future where you might be unsure of someones edits. You don't have to deal with them right away. Leave it a few hours or even a couple days until you have more to go by. Happy editing! -- Agathoclea (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Unschool. You have new messages at Pedro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 4

Thank you for your contribution. Insightful and well thought-out. Madcynic (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you. You're kind to say so. Unschool 19:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for reverting vandalism on my User page. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Unschool 18:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Remarkable coincidence

Great minds think alike perhaps? :) -- Longhair\^talk 21:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. Unschool 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flandreau Cemetery

Hi Unschool, I don't know why I've developed a liking for the cemetery, but I have. I've started turning some of the info already linked in the article into text, footnotes, and templates. I don't know yet if it is enough to establish notability in the way in which you've suggested, but perhaps a lot of little things add up enough. Perhaps at some point you can have another look? And of course, if you could milk your relatives in New York State for information, that'd be great too! :) Drmies (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Stanley/Port Stanley

See [5] for the answer. Justin talk 23:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Unschool 05:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turfing

Thanks. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Academy Awards

It's rather useless to say "Academy Award-nominated". Decent writing puts it last and notes what it was nominated for. That's my two cents at least: that's like putting "worshipped" in the first sentence of God's article. Besides, winning Oscars doesn't necessarily mean it was a popular film, Norbit got a nomination for makeup. Alientraveller (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been at WP:MOSFILMS#Lead section for awhile. I would point people to that. Awards still get mentioned, just not in the first sentence, and we shouldn't prize one award over another.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, NOLE; I'm glad to see that that's in writing. (And, just in case you were wondering how long it's been there, it looks like its been just over a year). Cheers. Unschool 05:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Template?

I'm sitting here like an idiot wondering if this is a template or not, and if so, which template it is. Is it automatically added?

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

I know you used it if it's not added by some bot or the server. Is it a Twinkle-related (or exclusive) script? LedgendGamer (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Gamer. That verbiage is a script generated by Twinkle. And it's not a stupid question; I wondered the same thing myself when I first came across it. Cheers. Unschool 07:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm using Twinkle now, I really don't know. It's this script. Anyways, I'm wondering (before I severely screw up), what exactly do the four options available at the top of a diff page do? I think I can figure out the first one ([restore this version]) easily enough, but the last three ([rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)]) are being severely confusing. This is made even more confusing by the fact that they only appear on the most recent diff. I'm asking you because I know you use Twinkle, and because you seem helpful. It would also really help if you could tell me how to configure it (if possible) so I don't wind up with every user I warn in my watchlist. (Should I even be using Twinkle at all, taking into account my limited experience with wikipedia?) Thanks. -- LedgendGamer (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your last question is an excellent one. Actually, I would have thought that someone with less than 300 edits would be unable to obtain the use of Twinkle. My advice would be for you to stick to use of the "Undo" function for another month. Why? It's easy to misuse Twinkle accidentally, and you could find yourself getting warnings or even being blocked.

To answer your questions, an "AGF" rollback leaves a message that the edits you are rolling back appear to have been good faith edits, and thus, you're not impugning the motive of the editor whose work you are removing. It also gives you an opportunity to add an explanatory note as to why you're removing their edits. The "VANDAL" rollback leaves a message declaring that the person you're reverting was committing an act of vandalism. The middle, plain "Rollback", presumes neither good faith nor vandalism, and gives an opportunity to leave an explanatory message. Good luck with your editing. Unschool 19:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Making specific

Take part since you reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#Making_specific —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFeelings? (talk • contribs) 00:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay; give me a moment. Unschool 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your word choice makes your post a bit confusing. But I see what you're saying. Unschool 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Geography Barnstar

Perhaps you mean this? If so, I suggest asking commons:User talk:ShakataGaNai for details on that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ping!

Hello again, Unschool ... Just a ping that my IP has changed again (from User:72.75.108.10), and that I may be seeing light at the end of the tunnel ... been "hibernating" the past few weeks, but I may start editing several times per day again Real Soon Now. :-)

Happy Editing! — 138.88.91.205 (talk · contribs) _{03:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)}

Hey, how come you edit with these ever-changing IPs, instead of sticking with a user name? Unschool 04:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This essay should answer that question. :-) — 138.88.91.205 (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of my Barnstar

Hi, I was a bit frustrated, when I saw that you deleted my Barnstar from the Wikipedia:Barnstars page. Of course Im not going to re-insert it myself, since you are a much more experienced user. But I have some reasons, why I would like to ask you, if you could re-insert my Barnstar:

• As you mentioned yourself, my Barnstar is not perfectly identical with one of the other Barnstars, just close to one of them (in my subjective opinion not "too" close - and who may decide what is too close, and what isn't... one single person?).
• But even if my Barnstar would be too close, I think, that Barnstars should optically express what they are awarded for (again my subjective opinion). The Excellent User Page Award is given to those who put in that extra effort on their user page. Honestly... this rudimentary Barnstar does not look like a Barnstar confered for "extra effort". I would never award it to someone.
• And again an argument, in case that my Barnstar in your eyes is too close to the other one: All articles in Wikipedia may be edited, if someone thinks, that he/she can improve them. Now what about Barnstars? Is it forbidden to improve or simpy change Barnstars? Probabely some users would prefer the old Barnstar, others probably mine. But how shall we know, which Barnstar finds more approval, if you dont give the opportunity to choose?

Its up to you... I'll accept your decission, but I would really be happy, if you could re-insert my Barnstar. With kind regards --Rectilinium'♥' 09:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, my compliments for the way you are approaching this; your calm, deliberate post indicates a true-wikipedia spirit, which will serve you well if you stay around for a long time. Okay, now, on to the particulars.

• First of all, your BStar refers to extra effort on one's "user discussion page", i.e., talk page. I guess I'm unaware of anything special that anyone does on their discussion page. Oh, occasionally I'll see someone using a different background color or different font, but truthfully, I don't see that as going an extra mile, in fact, more often than not, I find them more difficult to read. So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't get the part of the BStar complimenting persons on their talk page. Perhaps you could supply me with some examples.
• Having dismissed the talk page portion of the BStar, all that is left is to compliment the editor on their user page, and yes, a BStar for that already exists. So now it becomes a redundant BStar, as far as I can see.

So is that the end of the story? Not necessarily. The Barnstar that already exists, the Excellent User Page award, is (in my own opinion) far less attractive than the one that you created. If you still want to promote it, go to this talk page, and propose your Barnstar as a replacement for the current Excellent User Page BStar. I will support your BStar as a replacement, but not as an additional, for the reasons I have listed above. What do you think? Unschool 20:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Unschool. Thank you very much for your explanations. I really do comprehend your arguments. Now... I actually shy away from asking others to delete the work from somebody else (even if I dont like the Barnstar which was introduced by Frater5 on May 29, 2006... he spent his time to design an award to honor other users). What I'll be doing now: 1. I'll be leaving a message on Frater5's page, to ask his opinion (if it is ok for him, that I leave a message on the Award talk page, or if he does'nt answer - because he is not that active anymore), then I will... 2. try to promote my Barnstar. Thanks for your help. With kind regards --Rectilinium'♥' 08:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

West Point (1847)

Hello again. Thank you for copyediting my West Point article. But there is one correction that you should undo, to avoid an edit war. You moved the article from West Point (1847) to West Point (sailing ship). Now... actually the original title of my article was West Point (ship). But then another user, Beaverbear (who is a specialist for naval related subjects), moved it to West Point (1847) because there are Wikipedia-conventions for ship names! I learnt that it is common to add the ship type and number (in case of new ships) and the year of the launching (in case of historical ships) to the articles title, so that the ships with the same name are not confused (even if there is just one article about a ship with a certain name in that moment). Otherwise administrators have more work if another ship with this name is added. I actually started to write articles about other West Point ships (offline) and I will add them to Wikipedia within this year. Many people, interested in naval related subjects, are trying to bring some order in the structure of ship/shippingline/shipcompany articles - adding a year to each ship title is just one of the efforts. Please have a look at the articles history: 16:53, 2 March 2009 Beaverbear (talk | contribs) m (9,984 bytes) (moved West Point (ship) to West Point (1847): Conventions for ship name (multiple name)) (undo). With kind regards --Rectilinium'♥' 10:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rectilinium, for that heads up. That page on ship naming conventions was very informative, and I shall take care to keep it in mind in the future. Despite this, I'm not going to move it back, but I'm also not worried about an edit war. Let me explain.

First of all, while you are correct, the name that I have given this is not, strictly speaking, in accordance with this naming convention, neither was the name that it had before I moved it. Secondly, my reading of the naming convention for ships indicates that it actually takes someone with more knowledge than I have to make the correct move. I could guess, but that hardly benefits the encyclopedia. Finally, while the name that I have given it is not perfect, it is better (for the reasons that I explained earlier) than the name it had before.

No edit war is to be feared. When someone comes along who knows better than you and I how this should actually be named, I won't resist them in any way. And in the meantime, since there are no other West Points with articles, this does no harm. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. There's a lot to learn regarding Wikipedia, and I'm quite sure that no one knows it all. God knows I sure don't. Cheers! Unschool 05:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Unschool. Thanks for your explanation. Actually I do not agree with you (because of the reasons I explained earlier). I do respect other opinions and decisions, if the people have good arguments (I really do). The argument "the title should give the reader a better idea of the subject" is a good one, but “the title should avoid confusions” should be more important. That’s why more experienced users determined this name-conventions for ship-names. Unfortunately many users (especially those who are not shipping literate) don’t adhere to this conventions, and therefore the whole shipping-“field” is a mess, which makes it very difficult to find something (especially ships - as there is almost no ship that bears a name exclusively). After I uploaded my West Point (ship) article, some experienced users told me, that I should choose an article name very carefully and predictive, so that I don’t produce an extra effort to those administrators that finally need to change a falsely chosen or inaccurate name. Now you tell me the exact opposite. In case of the West Point, it was the first article about a that named ship, but it wont be the last. If I name it West Point (ship) or West Point (sailing ship), it wont be long until an administrator needs to move an article and to make changes to redirections and disambiguation pages. It is possible to avoid such extra work, if one names an article correctly (s. conventions) in the moment he/she uploads it.

One user (an expert for shipping subjects) once wrote: “Some people are so deeply at the bottom of the food chain, that they have plankton bits on their fundament”. Now it seems my posterior is full of plankton bits, as I am a new user, and all I do or say does not carry much weight. I surely don’t know much about Wikipedia, but actually I do understand quite a view things about shipping subjects. Anyway, as I told you, I will write articles about other West Point sailing ships soon, more clearly about 2 brigs, 1 schooner and 1 barque. It makes no sense to name the articles West Point (brig) or West Point (schooner), as in many cases there are 2-20 ships of the same type with the same name. At the very latest when I finally upload the other West Point articles (which will happen soon), some editor will have that extra work. However… it was important for me to write you once again, and if you really think, that my arguments are not worth being considered, I finally accept it and Im not going to bother you again with this subject. With kind regards --Rectilinium'♥' 09:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps you misunderstand me. I totally agree that the naming conventions for ships is better than what I did. I merely said that I—Unschool—lack the expertise to create the precise best title for the article. I will readily yield to anyone—including yourself—who understand the nomenclature of marine vessels to make a better title. My only point is that your original title was unacceptable, and my reading of the ship naming conventions does not support your title either. Why? Because to the ears of most Anglophones (especially North American ones) the name "West Point" summons up the thought of either the US Military Academy or the community of West Point, New York. Because of this, if you call the article West Point (1847), people are going to wonder if you are talking about a town that was founded in that year or something else that happened in that year. Ships are most certainly not going to be what they are talking about. I would be okay with West Point (1847 sailing ship), but I won't do it because I suspect that someone more knowledgeable than I would have a more specific class of ship they want to use, or something along those lines. I don't want to move it just to see it moved again a day later because I made (another) inadequate choice.

But the other, more significant point is, there is no need to get worked up about it. You're right, there's a better way. So what? That's the beauty of the Wikipedia, that I am confident that if I do something that improves an article, but does not improve it as much as it could be, that I'm still doing good, and that someone else will come along and make it even better. I am confident that for 99% of our readers, West Point (sailing ship) is a better title than West Point (1847). Is it a perfect title? Of course not. But no one is harmed by my slight improvement, and no one is stopped from making it even better. No edit wars need occur, because I have no dog to bring to the fight. Unschool 07:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Unschool. Again... I dont agree with you, and I could write you why, but I dont think, that you are willing to accept other opinions. And as I wrote you before, I dont want to bother you any longer with that subject (but by the way... all ships have names that summon up the thought of some community or person). Probably you will finally understand the problem, when I upload my other West Point articles. With kind regards --Rectilinium'♥' 09:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised (and maybe a bit hurt) that you think I'm unwilling to accept other opinions. Just what is it that you want to do? I'm not sure that I've even really disagreed with you. I'm left to wondering, given your babel boxes, that this boils down to a language issue. Are you asking me to return the article to West Point (1847)? If that's what you want, I can't do it anyway, only an administrator can return the article to the title from which it has previously been moved. Unschool 16:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry! I didnt wanted to hurt you. But I really had the impression that you dont understand my point of view (probably I was a bit hurt too...). Anyway... let's move on from this article (others will take care of it: leave it the way it is now, change it... or whatever). I will publish further articles soon, and probably you would like to edit them, as I still need the help of native english speakers that are willing to correct my articles. With kind regards --Rectilinium'♥' 17:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(od)Hi, Unschool. This has been brought up at WT:SHIPS. Your may wish to put your views there. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have placed my thoughts at your suggested location. Unschool 17:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've replied there. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:Transparent backgrounds

The main advantage of having a transparent background is that the picture become flexible, and easy to use on any base color, or any page, a transparent image background will take the color of the part of page it pasted in without any effort, while a picture with a solid background will need to be adjusted check this example

as you can see the deference here as the transparent one took the color with no need for adjustment Maen. K. A. (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, very cool. Thanks for explaining that. Can you explain why the image of the transparent appears to be less crisp, or I guess has slightly less contrast? It doesn't look bad, just different. Unschool 20:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your so welcome, please feel free to ask any time, I am so happy helping others :-), I guess its only a matter of quality chosen by the person made the transparent background, look here when i added a transparent background, the picture was changed from .jpg to .png, that affected the quality for sure

File:User Discussion page Barnstar.jpg	now>	File:User Discussion page Barnstar trans.png

its an issue about the format conversion Maen. K. A. (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Party political office

Please don't remove these succession box headers as you did for the Democratic nominee for Governor of Florida. Republican/Democratic nominees should be listed as that, whether it be nominee for congress, senate, etc

vi. Party political offices (s-ppo)
These are offices that are part of the mechanisms of political parties. They include:
Party leaders/chairmen
Whips
Party candidates for the Presidency of the United States, France, etc.
Chairpersons of the Democratic and Republican National Committees (United States)
Only important positions in major parties should be given succession boxes.

Thismightbezach (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this was a mis-use of this template. If you look at the discussion at this page, you will see some detailed explanation as to why this usage is not correct. But to be brief, it comes down to this: A nominee does not hold an office, he seeks an office. Of course I know that you already understand that he is seeking an office, but the important point here is that being a nominee is not holding any office just by being a nominee. An office is a position that is generally filled at all times, and though vacancies may occur through death or resignation, there exists a process for filling them more or less immediately. This is not the case with a party nomineee.

Now this template does have a purpose. There are positions that might accurately be called "party political offices" (although this term itself probably violates WP:OR). In the United States these would include the chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties, the majority and minority leaders in Congress (as well as the whips). These are permanent offices occupied year round, every year, by someone selected by the party.

Anyway, I think we have acheived an agreement to create a more appropriate template for these nominees, Political Party Nominees. Personally, I don't really think that this is necessary; the succession boxes are fine without them, in my opinion. But at least this will be accurate.

Sorry about how long I ramble on. Believe it or not, I cut about half of my diatribe before saving it. I'd be happy to discuss this further. Cheers. Unschool 23:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards

Hi Unschool. I have a view questions/suggestions (whatever) concerning the Talkpage of the WP Awards:

• Small group of activ users: It seems that within the last 4-6 weeks less people are involved in the decision-making process. You are the most activ user on this talk page. Do you probably know further users that are interested to bring in their opinion? It would be great if at least 10 users could be invited to attend this discussion group, (preferably people that also have an unerring eye for graphics and that can make a “professional” or at least objective statement concerning the old/new Barnstars).

I agree less have been involved, and I am not pleased. Unfortunately, pages/projects tend to have this happen, periodically. I recently posted on the talk page of User:Chamal N[6], thinking the same thing as you. However, I am reluctant to post more, because I have been burned in the past by WP:CANVASS. Wikilawyers will claim that any significant posting to multiple user talk pages in order to solicit participation on an article or project talk page, are violating this policy. (Personally, I think it's absurd, and a violation of the principles of free speech.) For this reason, I am not inclined to seek out others. But you're absolutely right, we'd be better off with increased participation.Unschool

Im glad you told me about WP:Canvass. I never heard of that before. Good to know. Someone suggested that I shall write a posting on the page Graphics village pump. Thats what I did. I hope I was able to motivate some users to participate on the projects talk page. I've seen that 39 people added their name on the projects main page, which means, that they are interested in maintaining the Awards page and proposals, and helping out with the project in general. Do you think it is canvassing too, if we ask them to attend the group again? --Rectilinium'♥' 12:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Pending requests: There are several pending requests (upgrading Purple Star, Star Wars Barn Star, Hoax Finder Barnstar, New Page Patrol award, Off-wiki barnstars) that have not been discussed at all. What shall we do with these request?

Per the pending requests: Given the nature of this page, and how it does take a long time to get a significant cross section, my general feeling would be to wait on approving new barnstars on which you didn't have at least a couple or three editors endorse a version. I do think it's okay to ask multiple times, since someone who has it on their watchlist may have missed an issue from a few weeks ago, and they may respond to a second request (kinda like at WP:AfD, where articles get "relisted" to get more input.Unschool

Ok, then lets wait and see what happens... --Rectilinium'♥' 12:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Archiving: I think that the discussion-page became quite long and I noticed, that there are a view topics that could be moved to the archives. Who’s archiving the old postings?

Per archiving. No one's in charge, as far as I know. If you think an issue is resolved and settled, like the graphic designer BStar, then by all means, I'm okay with archiving it. Go for it.Unschool

Did it :)... --Rectilinium'♥' 12:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think, that personally I shouldn’t be involved in the decision process, but mainly in the production/creation of barnstars – probably that’s the best way for me to make a contribution. What do you think? With kind regards --Rectilinium'♥' 09:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you've got as much right as anyone to participate in the process, but you are probably wise by simply sitting back and letting others judge your work. It really sets you in a more prestigious light, sort of above the fray, as it were.Unschool

And I can't thank you enough for bringing your talents here. You know, you could probably improve nearly every barnstar out there, but I also think that there's something to be said for tradition. Like you and I were both saying before, that Admin's Barnstar doesn't need to be replaced (except for the resolution). If a BStar is working, and we keep using it, it helps connect us as a community when people who got a BStar see someone else with that same image on their User Page years later. What I love about your work is that you have been replacing BStars that really didn't get the job done, and it's only incidental that you have been doing so with the best images in the history of the Barnstar Project. Thanks, again. Unschool 01:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. It is a very delicate affair (renewing traditional barnstars), and we or more precisely I should be careful when I suggest new designs. Concerning SoWhy's request (Admin Barnstar): I tried to make an identical award in a better quality. I was not completely successfull, as I couldnt find the same broom which was on the old barnstar. I also made a slightly different version. I will upload them here on your discussion page, before I upload them on the projects discussion page, and you can tell me if I shall propose both designs. And last but not least: thank you very much for encouraging me to design the barnstars and thanks for your support :) !! --Rectilinium'♥' 12:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've only got a moment, but just so you know, it's not a broom at all. It's a mop. "Getting the mop" is a common euphamism for becoming an admin. During an RfA people will comment, "I think we can trust him with the mop", or things like that. Cheers. Unschool 17:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi... sorry. On the original page I was not able to see that it should be a mop (because the picture had such a bad quality). I changed it now against a mop. And thanks for explaining the thing with "getting the mop". I didnt know that (learned somethin new again :)...) --Rectilinium'♥' 20:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin Barnstar 1a		Admin Barnstar 1b		Admin Barnstar 1c		Admin Barnstar 1d
	OR		OR		OR

Admin Barnstar 2a		Admin Barnstar 2b		Admin Barnstar 2c		Admin Barnstar 2d
	OR		OR		OR

After your explaination concerning this "mop-paraphrase", I really think that the first, original design with the mop is the most suitable one. As soon as I get your ok, I will move the designs Admin Barnstar 1a - Admin Barnstar 1d to the projects discussion page. Do you think we could use the other design (2a-2d) for something else? --Rectilinium'♥' 06:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My favorites are 1a and 1c. Yes, by all means, move them to the project page.

Ok... moved it ;) --Rectilinium'♥' 11:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Right now, I can't think of another use for the other design, but keeping them on your new barnstar page is a good idea, so that they're always available when an idea comes along. Unschool 10:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

New Subpage

Hi Unschool... just to inform you: I created a new user-subpage for my barnstars: Rectiliniums Barnstars --Rectilinium'♥' 09:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about the map on Upper Midwest

Hi, I have started a discussion at Talk:Upper Midwest#An alternate map to discuss which of the two maps should be on the article. I see you have been a past contributor to the article and therefore am notifying you of the discussion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Tact

Hi Unschool - just stopping by to say that I was making the same revert as you just made on John Edwards, but you beat me to it -- probably for the best as my edit summary was somewhat less generous than yours. I am not so sure the original edit was in such good faith, but I admire your tact in any case! Nice to meet you, a fellow Eisenhower baby. Tvoz/talk 06:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Happy editing! Unschool 06:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I just realized I am a Truman baby. But he was gone before I became aware of such things! Tvoz/talk 06:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why, but reading your last post there really cracked me up. Thanks for the smile! Unschool 06:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. Jojhutton (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mary Shaw

Aww, you beat me to it.. :P Until It Sleeps 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it still needs a heck of a lot of work. I still suspect that even in its truncated state that there may be some garbage in there. Cheers. Unschool 23:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A Technical question for you

A while back ago, I was able to view my edit count and my edits would be shown by month. [This is no longer the case]. It says that I need to "opt in", but gives me no instructions to do so. [Since you have seemed to figured it out], could you tell me how you did it?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Joj, I've never seen that problem before. But to tell you the truth, I've not used that particular edit counter for ages. Try going here, and let me know if this works for you. It's by far the most sophisticated edit counter I've used yet. Unschool 03:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks a bit odd to me, but it gets the job done. I like to look at my edit count every once in a while and admire my own handy work. thanks again.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:TFA

Respectfully, IPs and new editors are legitimate editors (this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit) and more guidelines apply for a TFA than other articles. This is not intended in any way as a rebuke of any actions, but simply an informative statement about IPs, new editors, and TFAs of which you may or may not be aware. If you know it, then you already know it and this is redundant. If you don't know it, well, now you know. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've reviewed your comments here on your talk page to get to know you a little better...I like what I see and I think you and I are mostly on the same page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):You are, of course, correct, and even as I wrote that I knew that it was a bit unfair. When I monitor recent changes, I filter it so that I only see anon edits. And while that does allow me to find a lot more vandalism than I would otherwise find, it does also help me to see that there are a ton of anon editors out there who are doing positive edits. I appreciate you calling me to task for my comment; it never hurts to have a fellow editor proffer advice and counsel. I hope you realize that by no means am I a newbie biter; I just slipped a bit this time. Thanks. Unschool 06:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks also for your second paragraph. Unschool 06:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh...you and I are on the same page... Mind if I keep you in my Wikipedia rolodex? :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you've got room. Cheers! Unschool 07:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Away for a while

Hi Unschool. Thanks for your message. I'm sorry that I was not able to answer earlier. I was at hospital during almost 3 weeks. Now I was allowed to come home for a couple of days, but I will be forced to go back on monday. I feel quite bad at the moment, but I hope I will recover so I can continue my graphical work. I will send you a message as soon as it is possible. Kind regards, --Rectilinium'♥' 03:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC) (oh... and by the way... it is girl... not boy ;)...)

Hey, Rect, I'm so sorry that you're ill. Obviously it sounds very serious, and I can only say that I truly hope that you and your doctors can find a way to overcome this. Incidentally, I've known for some time that you were female; the use of "Boy" to begin a sentence does not, in this particular usage of American English, indicate anything about the gender of the person being addressed, but rather, indicates a mild, even feigned exasperation with the situation being discussed. Now if I had not immediately followed the "Boy" with your name, then it might have been mistaken for a disparaging form of address, wherein a grown man is demeaned and treated like a child (often with racist overtones).

Anyway, get well soon, you are very much cared about in this community. Unschool 04:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocking

It's the QUT IP. It's gonna get blocked some time soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.181.251.66 (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Unschool. You have new messages at VirtualSteve's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--VS ^talk 10:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unalaska, Alaska

Hi, according to the reference the runway is asphalt. However, it's not that big a deal and paved works just as well. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

On my second look at the reference I finally saw the tabs, and you're right of course about what it says. I think you're right, it can stay the way it is, but I am going to contact someone I know still living there, someone who uses the runway regularly, and find out for sure. May take a while before I hear from him. Cheers. Unschool 13:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 09:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Query

Rich, when I look at an edit like this from an experienced editor like yourself, I don't doubt that it's correct. But I gotta ask you—how did you know that that needed to be changed? I mean, a) how do you know what it should actually be, and b) how did you come to see it? I'm just curious. Unschool 03:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a major clean-up of ISBN numbers in 2006/7 with the help of a number of editors. I recently stumbled upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia and discovered that they have got out of hand again since (the software I wrote at the time has been partially lost). I scanned a recent database dump for these errors and fixed them. Rich Farmbrough, 07:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC).

Error

No worries, I had assumed the edit labeled as vandalism was an accident anyways (even though the edit wasn't vital to the plot). The reason that I removed the message was the same intentions as yours, that I didn't want the IP to see it and believe his/her edit had been considered vandalism. I reverted it as quickly as possible to prevent the IP from seeing the warning. I was considering also adding a welcome tag too, but I went to bed before I got around to it. Thanks for adding the welcome tag, and keep up the good work with the vandal fighting. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Flamarande

I answered your post on my talkpage. Thanks Flamarande (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Irish nobility

Hi, you need to give a reason for such a colossal revert, especially when I obviously have "expert knowledge" concerning the history and current state of the Irish nobility, some of whom are distant cousins. The Queens and noblewomen section will be expanded to include sovereignty once I go looking around wikipedia for intellectual discussions on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.133.81 (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I do need to apologize. This is embarassing, but that revert was the result of me trying to edit Wikipedia while trying to listen to my wife. Bad mix. One thing that happened because I was trying to converse and edit was that, as you can see, I only hit the regular "Rollback" button. I never use that; I always use the Twinkle Rollback when reverting something like this, and that would have given me a warning that this anon IP had done a couple of dozen edits in a row, and then I would have reviewed it more carefully before deciding to go forward. So yes, you are right; I needed to have an explanation (which Twinkle also would have prompted me to do), and I did not. My apologies.

Having said that, who the hell are you? How do I know that you have "expert knowledge"? How do I know you are to be believed? I strongly urge you to establish a username, which will make your work easier to recognize. Editing from an anon IP as you are, it is simply more likely that you are going to get accused of vandalism once in a while from someone doing quick vandal fighting. Please give this some serious consideration. Cheers. Unschool 06:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the O'Donovan talk page, I am an American of French Canadian descent and scholar of Scandinavian mythology and prehistory. I have very little Celtic ancestry, but sometimes I get into it, and I thought it would be nice to create a model Irish surname article and then expand the related articles. As far as establishing an account, I might still, although I really don't see the purpose since I'm not actually established in Celtic studies. But research is something I know, if you want to read the O'Donovan article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.19.215 (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of setting up a username? You're right that it won't prove your expertise in a subject. But if, instead of editing as an anonymous IP editor, you were instead to have a regular username, say, User: IrishHerald, then people would begin to recognize you when they see your edits, and you would begin to develop a reputation, based upon your edits. Acquiring a good reputation for being a serious editor makes it less likely that someone with limited knowledge is going to come along and challenge your work. Oh, sure, someone else with similar expertise will want to occasionally have some intense discussions with you, but people like myself who know nothing about your areas will leave it to you and the other two people who are into that. Accordingly, you won't get reverted as often by people who misunderstand your intent.

And such a username would not, of course, limit you to editing in one area. Though I have the username User: Unschool, the article on unschooling is only #53 on the list of the 100 articles to which I have most contributed, and edits to that article constitute only 0.009% of my total edits. Those who know me associate me with a number of other articles besides Unschooling.

So get serious, and get a username. Unschool 04:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean up

Thanks for addressing the lil vandal edit on my userpage. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Input request

Thanks for the heads up :). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Anytime.Unschool 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Unschool, I think you overstepped a little in removing the Barnstars from the page. If they had changed an existing barnstar without discussion, I have no problem with the change being reverted. However, I also don't have a problem with people adding a new barnstar to the page. While I agree that it would be polite to discuss the thing first, adding a new barnstar that isn't controversial isn't that big a deal. Discussion can always start when it is still on the page, and if consensus goes against it it can be removed or changed. I think summarily removing new barnstars from the page just because they haven't been discussed yet when the barnstars themselves are relatively uncontroversial is a poor precedent that discourages boldness. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'm not sure what to say. I value your opinion, so I'm going to mull this over and get back to you. Thanks for telling me how you felt. Unschool 14:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, take your time. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Nutik, I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree. The biggest point in your favor is WP:BITE, but I don't think that I'm biting them, since I'm putting it up for discussion. And I do really worry about the chaos at WP:BS. Why should that matter? Because if it does become chaotic, barnstars become devalued, I think. And in my experience, a barnstar can be highly motivating. I don't need them now, but when I first got one, it really charged me up and helped sustain me. I want a viable Barnstar project, and I think that making sure they're discussed is a good idea. I mean there have been a lot of barnstars that this page has said "no" to.

I guess what I'm saying is this: Whether a barnstar is posted straight onto WP:BS or on the talk page, it has a chance of being rejected. I think for a newbie (or maybe anyone), it would be a lot less personal if his award was taken for discussion at the talk page, and she or he realized that that's just how we do it with everyone. I think this is better than the alternative, which would be to allow some to stay on the page and others would get talked to death and then kicked off. I mean, the first way of doing it allows the editor to realise that there is process involved, and that it's not personal.

I rarely feel like I'm expressing myself as poorly as I am now. I don't expect you to agree, but do you think you might be able to see my point? Unschool 22:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what does your name mean, if it's not too intrusive to ask? Unschool 22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're right in that I don't agree, but I do see your point and it is a valid one. Very well, I withdraw my objection, provided we are careful only to apply this method to WP:BARN, and not the minor pages like WP:PUA. We'll try it your way for a while and see how things turn out. Most likely, there won't be any problems with it. In answer to your question, no, it is not intrusive to ask the meaning of my username.  :-) "Nutiket" is a Leni Lenape word meaning "Guardian," and is a ritual character of the Order of the Arrow, a semi-secret honor society of the Boy Scouts of America which I was a member of during my youth. The "Aiel" are a race of people in my favorite novels, The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan (being finished by Brandon Sanderson since Jordan's death). I've been using this name since I was in high school, primarily because it had meaning for me and was a strange enough combination that it was unlikely to be in use by anyone else on any web site or message board or whatnot, so I could use the same username for almost everything if I was so inclined. Rather simplifies matters that way. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; new awards posted to WP:BS will be brought to the talk page, awards posted to WP:PUA will be left untouched. Thanks for being so open minded. And thanks also for your explanation of your username. It is good to have a username that you can use in all fora without anyone else using it. I'm afraid that "Unschool" doesn't qualify; I have seen it used elsewhere by others, albeit when I first adopted it I knew of no one else using it.

Cheers! Unschool 00:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor Assistance Requests

You are involved in a thread opened at WP:EAR#Unschool. SpinningSpark 08:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Japanese cultural artifacts controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Japanese cultural artifacts controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese cultural artifacts controversy (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Enki H. (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Unschool!

For reverting vandalism on my User Page, thumbs up. Scribner (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. Unschool 00:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Delicious baked goods

Nutiketaiel 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 someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I loved the 2010 reference on the awards talk page and had to throw some delicious chocolaty recognition your way! It was hilarious. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Unschool 02:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why are you editing my facts about JAMS? They're completely 100% true.

Truth is not the standard by which we determine what goes in to the encyclopedia. Information must not only be true, it must also be verfiable, significant, and objective. I've removed a lot of material from the school's article that did not meet that criteria. Looks like a very fine school, but the number of points scored in a track meet does not meet the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sorry.Unschool 06:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I now realized what you mean. Thanks for making the JAMS page better. We appreciate your input in making the best page. :)

Latter Day Saints

Hi. I didn't mean my edit summary to be disrespectful. The proper term for that period in the history of the Latter Day Saint movement is Latter Day Saint, and not Latter-day Saint. The correct article for that period is Church of Christ (Latter Day Saint). The whole thing can be confusing but the rule of thumb is that Latter-day Saints refers to the Mormon Church in Utah, as they changed the spelling to the British Latter-day after moving west. Hope that helps... Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well in that case, if I had written "Latter Day Saints", instead of "Latter-day Saints", would it have been acceptable? Unschool 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Harry Roseland

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Harry Roseland, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

unreferenced article with little indication of notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RadioFan (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to the editor on his talk page that maybe he might want to wait a little longer before prodding an article; this one was tagged by RadioFan literally one minute after it was created. Unschool 21:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Your work at Category:Cleanup by month has been recognized and appreciated. :) -- œ™ 08:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Unschool. You have new messages at OlEnglish's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

œ^™ 00:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, you may also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/TheCleanTeam. The project could definitely use you! -- œ^™ 18:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone is already on top of things. I'll consider joining after I get a chance to reset my level of wikiactivity. Thanks for letting me know about it. Unschool 02:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Confused

My mistake, mate. I saw your comment before seeing your edit. I assumed that it was a sarcastic "okay". The original comment (that I deleted) was a response to what I believed to be a pointless comment. The comment that I replaced it with was a genuine "nice one"... No sarcasm... No hidden meaning. Sorry about that. I should've checked before posting! =P Zestos (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. See you around! Unschool 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

plunder

thanks for the headsup. i tossed in two cents worth.Gzuckier (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles

Good job with the openning sentence on The Beatles article. It's about time somebody got it right! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment; I'm flattered that anyone noticed. Unschool 23:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fashion File

I believe the anon is User:Alexander.hugh.george, who previously prodded the articles on Fashion File and Adrian Mainella in late June — I see from that user's talk page that he also made some contentious edits to Britney Spears, which seems to fit with the fact that the anon's other edit today involved Jamie Lynn, and that the username's been permanently editblocked for posting personal attacks and racist diatribes against, um, Swedes (!?) Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't think of questioning your deductive skills; my question is, is there anything you'd like a serf like me to do about it? Unschool 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already dealt with it; I was just letting you know. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Okefenokee. Thanks. Unschool 00:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

University of Baltimore School of Law

I have restored most of the original content to the notable alumni section of this page that was removed by an anonymous editor, restored and then removed again by you. The original deletor mistakenly thought that names on the page were there in error. After a cursory check, I disagree. I have removed one name and placed it with the correct law school, but 90% of the rest are either footnoted with a reference or have wiki articles themselves with appropriate footnotes. Many of the entries I placed there myself over the last 2 years. I will continue later with a more precise examination--«Marylandstater» ^«reply» 10:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I merely considered the matter worth a look by someone knowledgeable, and you clearly have provided that. I appreciate your efforts. Unschool 01:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank's

Thank's for your invitation to help in the discussion in the Nazi Plunder article, but I'm a spanish languaje user, not very skill in english. I'm going to read the discussion and, if I can, help. Bye. Rakela (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yo puedo comprender porque no quieres ayudar con este trabajo; claramente lo que tenemos que hacer es decidir cosas tocante palabras exactamentos, y si ingles no es tu idioma primera, tienes razon, probablemente estara dificil para ti a ayudarnos mucho. Pero cuando hemos decidido estas cosas, espero que vas a contribuir al contenido de los articulos. En todos modos, gracias (y por favor, perdone mi espanol tan feo). Unschool 01:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your terrible español is equal to my very bad english. About the question, ¿have you see the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in the article 8, section 2, about war crimes? The Rome Statute can be qualify as the legal basis in the matter of war crimes, the crime of agression and genocide. I belive it can be usefoul in this discussion. I, personally belive that looting and it's derivates is the most precise term for this and the others articles. Cya! Rakela (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

HIHIHIHIHIHI!

File:No image. Sorry! .png		OVAR 9000 Cookies For You!
		For your protection of the l33tn3ss of my Webpage. Thanks so much man! My, It wins one internetz and 4 cookies. (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Unschool 02:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles lead

Yes, I think it's an improvement. I found the old lead's first sentence awkward because it did not first and foremost explain who the band were, just their success. I prefer the new sentencing, which has now been improved by other users. That's the style in which most band articles are written.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 00:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

2000s

Thanks for commenting on my edits, it's always good to hear feedback from a fellow editor. I was debating whether it was necessary to put the names of the countries that legalized gay marriage, but in the grand scheme of things I suppose it isn't really necessary, especially in an article whose purpose is to summarize. I wouldn't be opposed to you removing that part. I think it would be interesting to at least mention how many countries/states have legalized it, but if others are opposed to that as well, I won't object. The part where I mentioned the invasion of Afghanistan was solely because I thought it odd that the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't mentioned at all, considering it was such a major event. I think Al Qaida should be mentioned, but I agree that such specifics about the invasion of Afghanistan don't really need to be, since it would probably be better if it was implied in the text. I made my edit pretty quickly so I definitely welcome the feedback. bob rulz

I agree; Al Qaida is significant enough to warrant mention. I also agree that the Afghan War merits inclusion as much, if not more, than the Iraq War, if any specifics on the War on Terror are to be mentioned. I'm undecided, however, if War on Terror isn't just enough by itself. Unschool

I don't think War on Terror alone is enough to cover the subject - that would almost be akin to saying that the Korean and Vietnam Wars don't merit mention as long as the Cold War is mentioned. They were major, influential events in and of themselves. bob rulz (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from the new version, I anticipated your objection. Is this now acceptable? Unschool 19:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it looks good to me. bob rulz (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Along the same lines, since the 2000s decade is coming to a close, it's getting close to time to create a much more thorough article on the decade, similar to those that other decades have. You seem like a reasonable user so I was wondering if you would be interested in helping with that? I actually started to imagine how it would be written - I'm hoping for it to be well-written (and well-referenced of course) throughout, which is a huge task, especially considering how much of a mess most of the other decade articles are haha. I want it to become more than just a bullet-point list of major events/achievements of the decade. bob rulz (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you take a look here, you'll see that I have tried to get this exact discussion going, but with little luck. Your opinions are valued, of course, and I hope to see them soon. I'm also wondering about the input from other regular contributors. In particular, I'm quite curious about one editor: Arthur Rubin. Arthur has been a quiet yet influential editor on this article; he is also an administrator. But surprisingly, he has not yet weighed in on this discussion. CrazyInSane is another editor who will likely have a good deal of influence on this debate. You and I have been on somewhat opposite ends of this discussion, nearly three years ago, but as we approach the end of the decade I will be reconsidering this matter from scratch. The one thing I know that you and I (and everyone else who has survived puberty) agree on is that it simply cannot turn into a collection of bullets. Prose is essential. Anyway, it's a discussion I look forward to. Thanks for your reply. Unschool 17:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My views have certainly changed a lot, and looking back at previous discussions, we weren't too far apart in our opinions. However, I think that if people can work together on making it a quality, prose-centric article, then the goal is achievable. There's a lot of work to be done though. bob rulz (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to working with you, as well. In fact, this thread has done more to make me feel positive about the future of the article than I have felt in a long time. Unschool 19:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, that's good to hear. I'm looking forward to it as well - hopefully we can follow through. bob rulz (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Participants

Have you thought of putting your 'four tildes' signature on this? :) --andreasegde (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I'm already an inactive participant on two places I ostensibly belong to. Tell you the truth, I just don't know enough about the Fab Four to offer much, anyway. Unschool 20:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments at WP:CANVAS

Unschool I fully agree with you 100%.

The problem is not this policy, but the combative and sometimes bullying way some editors approach AFDs and deletion discussions. If these discussions were more about cooperation than arguing, the canvassing guideline would not be necessary.

So how would you suggest changing this page? You are not going to get it deleted, I think it has to much support. Further, without changing the combative system, I think the guideline is necessary, although easily ignored, as someone mentioned on the talk page.

If you are serious about this, consider rewriting the page instead.

Please respond here. I will watch your page. Ikip (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate to disppoint you, but I don't have the energy to devote to trying to change this. If I knew for certain that a) I could change things, and b) it would actually improve things, then perhaps I would consider it. For now, I am resigned to simply taking opportunities to get people to think about the issue. That too, can bring change, if only very, very slowly.

But thank you for your encouraging words. Unschool 01:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I did…

The meaning of this edit was to correct the apostrophe’s typography. Δάσκαλος Ιωσήφ (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Joseph, I don't know about the editor who originally wrote that, but I'm not even sure my computer will allow me to make the nicer type of apostrophe that you changed it to. Okay, well, thanks for letting me know. Cheers! Unschool 11:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 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 someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the personal attack on my user page! Much appreciated! I'll investigate the 3 IP numbers that have been introducing the same content on my user page (through the Abuse reports system). Thanks! Netalarm 16:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Unschool 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Australian crisis & FoP

Hey Unschool! I think it was one of the best decisions in the world for us to have two houses, and especially an excellent decision in the middle of the 20th century to make it proportionally elected! Plus, your headache will contribute to me getting my overlordship, so you will be rewarded. —Felix the Cassowary 18:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently your supreme court judges should keep their noses cleaner! (just a note to let you know I've replied after a couple of days) —Felix the Cassowary 14:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

I enjoyed your comment about the Neo-Victorians. First they come for the pornographers... And don't get me started on the civility policy. :) Take care and have a great weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I think you action is ruder than me. I suggested to improve the articles, but you two insisted deletions. There is no room for further discussion. Your thought is that I accept you to delete my articles. Do you feel upset when someone suggest deleting your articles without probable reasons? OK, I just stop making related articles that time to escape the attacks, since I don't know when someone asks for deletions again. "Notibility" is regarded as a weapon to expel other culture for certain kind of person. In Chinese Wikipedia, someone seldom abuse "notiblity" and "not enough sources" to challenge the articles. But "notiblity" and "not enough sources" are always be there. It is not safe to express knowledge there. Ricky@36 (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Ricky, I don't agree when you say that I had "no reasons". I don't believe that these buildings are notable. You may not agree with that reason, but it is a reason. I would never ask to delete an article without a reason. I'm sorry that I came across as having no room for discussion; indeed, I am completely open to discussion, because I know that I do not know everything about Wikipedia policy. I'm doing my best, but Articles for Discussion is an area in which I actually know very little, and have often been proven wrong. Which brings me to the most important point of my reply. I could be wrong, but it sounds like you're taking this a bit personal. Ricky, this is not an attack on you or your articles. I'm just providing my input, explaining how I see it. And I think that I've explained myself each step of the way, which is my way of trying to be courteous. Sometimes I may forget to do that, and then I apologize, but I truly believe that I've been clear during this discussion about how I think policy applies here.

If, in the Chinese Wikipedia, notability and sources are not required, then that's fine for them. There are actually many people on the English Wikipedia who favor abolishing the notability requirement, and maybe someday they'll succeed in making it happen. But for now, it's the policy.

In Chinese Wikipedia, notability and sources also exist (of course in Chinese language term). But it seldom leads to articles deletions. Ricky@36 (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to talk with you as long as you're willing. I don't want to "defeat" you, I want us to work together, within the policies, to build the best encyclopedia we can. Unschool 02:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If you insisted deleting the articles of public housing estates in Hong Kong finally, I think there is no room for communication. As you said in the deletion tag in Shek Mun Estate, your plan is to delete the whole public housing estate in Hong Kong. Then you just declare war on all the editors who are engaged in the articles of public housing estates in Hong Kong. Ricky@36 (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Try to study the background of public housing estates in Hong Kong first to see how importance it is. Don't just put your mind to think of "notibility" excuses to eliminate other's culture. Otherwise, you will be busy in deleting articles every time, and article deletion is not your full-time job in your life. Ricky@36 (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there is something unique about public housing in Hong Kong that will persuade me. Can you provide me with some websites that I can visit to learn more about this? (And please, you may not realize it, but when you call my reasons "excuses", that comes across as bad faith. I assure you, I am being sincere, not using "excuses".) Unschool 02:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Public housing in Hong Kong

I have started a discussion about this topic and what we should do about the related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong. Please feel free to add your comments. If you need an introduction to the topic, you can have a look at Public housing in Hong Kong. Thank you. olivier (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

Just curious, have you ever considered running for adminship? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My "name" is Philosopher, and I approve this message. Seriously, for some reason I thought you were an admin. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I award you this Barnstar for all your hard work cleaning up articles. Your efforts are apreciated RP459 (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, RP! And I hope you'll join me in trying to clean up one article a month, cleaning it so well that its cleanup tag can honestly be removed. Happy editing, Unschool 18:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Pleas don't edit my User-page

You changed my own website URL on my Wikipedia User page to my old one.

That URL doesn't work, so I don't know why you put it back in there?

Pleas don't edit my User-page in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EinarKramer (talk • contribs) 18:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied to the editor on his talk page. Unschool 19:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Bonsai 2000s

Ok, I see what you mean, I sympathize with the challenges presented by the crufters. It certainly needs to be bigger by the end of the year, when journalists will be looking for story ideas.

Right now, it is extremely US centric. Just let the article grow naturally, and sub-divide sections off if it gets too big. Do a prune-down later. Improve the relevant info gems and shave off the cruft. You know that a completely top-down approach is not the wiki way.... Didi45 (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How's it going?

It seems like its been a while since we ran into each other - how's it going? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been at least six months, maybe longer. Well, I'm still addicted to the Project, but unable to convince either my employer or my wife that I should be allowed to edit Wikipedia 24/7. I'm thinking about contacting a lawyer to check out talk I've heard about addictions being covered under the ADA; maybe that's my route to joining the 100,000 edit club sooner than 2020. Hope all is going well with you. Unschool 23:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds wonderful.  ;) I'm doing okay, though I haven't been spending as much time around here for various real world reasons. Well, that and the fact that Hulu keeps adding more good shows.  :-D --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You let Hulu keep you from editing here? My respect for you has just plummeted. Unschool 16:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC) _{(P.S. You're supposed to keep one window open up in the corner of your monitor streaming Hulu while you edit Wikipedia in the bottom half of your screen. Tsk, tsk.)}

Oh, dear. Does it help that I keep Hulu open in a different browser - and edit during commercial breaks? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC) _{(Well, sometimes. Those breaks are short!)}

A question

Hello there. A quick question: Is there a noticeboard to report possible votestacking? I wish to have somebody more experienced then myself review this AfD. User Nokiki has edited said page, so I can see why (s)he would want to keep it, but users Downloaderprof and Sojourner666 appear to have come from nowhere to vote in support. Hope you don't mind me asking. Dynablaster (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, where you would go might depend on what you think is happening. If you think someone is votestacking in violation of WP:CANVASS, you might want to report your suspicions to WP:ANI, where an administrator could come to your assistance. But usually votestacking is made apparent when you see that one editor has been posting notices on other editors' talk pages. You didn't mention this (and I haven't checked it out), so I'm wondering if what you really suspect is that these editors who came out of "nowhere" are sockpuppets, which is a violation of WP:SOCK. If that is the case, you can report your suspicions to WP:SPI. HOWEVER, I caution you, to accuse a specific editor of engaging in sockpuppetry is a very serious allegation, and not one that you should make lightly, for the sake of your own reputation. But if you feel certain, then a Checkuser over at WP:SPI may be able to help you. I must also tell you that I have no personal experience dealing with sock investigations, so you might want to ask someone else's counsel on the matter. Good luck. Unschool 12:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I've checked out those editors, and I see your point. Downloaderprof talks like an experienced editor, and yet has only two total edits (both to the AfD) to his name. I honestly don't know if this rises to the level of evidence necessary to report to WP:SPI, but it can't hurt to go there, explain your situation, and include an explanation that you're uncertain as to whether this warrants reporting or not. If not, your non-demanding attitude will get you that knowledge without harm, and if so, then someone will check it out. Let me know if you decide to report it, and what results you get. Cheers. Unschool 12:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stolen Thunder

I suppose great minds do think alike, ahah. I also got into an edit conflict before I refreshed the project page--the creator of the page made a sub-section with gibberish letters. Strange. AfD edit conflicts are some of the more common ones, I guess! talkingbirds 00:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lodestar (band)

I still don't see any reliable sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My embarassment is great. I honestly assumed from looking at the edit history of the article in question that the editor who nominated it had placed sources on it. _{(Brief pause whilst Unschool goes outside and hitches his horse to the front of his cart.)} I certainly hope never to make that mistake again. I'm only glad that I didn't actually vote to "keep" on the AfD page before checking with you. Thanks for letting me know that my pants had fallen down. Unschool 02:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

hehheh. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Frustration

No apology necessary. It was an honest opinion. WPians are too quick to apologize for saying what is on their minds.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a generous and truly Wikipedian attitude on your part. For my part, I just never want someone to miss what I'm saying because they are too worked up over how I've said it. In real-life, face-to-face situations, I'm inclined to sympathize with someone's intent in making a comment rather than how someone received that comment. But online, it is so much easier to misunderstand someone's intent. For that reason, I am almost always willing to yield on perceived points of ettiquette, just so that we can get back to the real business at hand. Regardless, it's good to know that you're not as easily offended as some. Unschool 04:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Unschool. You have new messages at Cnilep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FDR

It looks concise, but I actually meant that Teddy was the longish one. I accidentally referred to FDR late in the debate when I meant Teddy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ping me if you take on any of the other leads. I want to see what they end up looking like if you do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Well, that explains why it seeemed so easy. Well, easy as it was, I've shot my wad for this week; I'll try to get to TR or one of the others next weekend. Cheers. Unschool 00:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Magnum Opus

Great work. You are good at that. You know I only went through the 120 biographical vital articles. There are 1000 vital articles if you get bored.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I really do enjoy this, but I only average about 3000-4000 edits a year, so this might take a while. Keep in mind that I'm just laying out a prose format; others will still need to come along and copyedit and stuff like that. Don't ever think that I think that my text shouldn't be messed with—this is Wikipedia and I'm not even trying to do anything fancy. You go on and have at it and improve things behind me. Unschool 03:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you just do WP:LEADs or do you like to copyedit in general. I am a good researcher who needs a copyeditor. My current FAC Crown Fountain could use a copyedit and my pipeline of nominees Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) and McDonald's Cycle Center could use some eyes on them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Whew, I don't know. I've never done any FAC work before. But this whole Lede thing is not something I set out to do, either. To tell you the truth, my past interest in ledes has simply been in the opening sentence or two—I have a strong passion for establishing notability immediately, whereas many articles are written like a novel and only at the end of the four paragraph lede do you discover that this was the guy who discovered vaccines or the woman who is the world's preeminent herpetologist or whatever. This experience today was the first time I've ever intentionally set out to wholly rewrite an entire lead (although on occasion that has happened when I've cleaned up other articles.)

Anyway, I don't know what the expectations are at FAC, nor how this would be done. By copyediting do you mean for wordstyling or mechanical issues like punctuation and capitalization? Are there time constraints? Do you want a copyedit immediately before it goes up for approval? Or have these already been submitted for approval and have been found wanting? I guess I wouldn't be averse to learning more about the process, but I don't want to commit to anything just yet. Unschool 04:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The best way to learn about WP:FAC is to come visit and figure out what is going on. Basically, my current FAC is getting no attention. In order for it to get promoted people have to come by and make a substantive assessment. Often this entails making suggestions on things to improve or making your own changes toward improving the article. I guess you could say there are directive changes and collaborative changes. Whatever you like to do is fine. I am prepared to address directed concerns and to monitor collaboration. Crown Fountain has been listed for several days, but some FACs run almost a month before a decision is made. Come look at other FACs and see what is going on and if you have a chance stop by mine. As far as my pipeline goes, you are allowed one FAC at a time so as soon as one ends, I put the next one up for nomination. Trump Tower will be next in a couple weeks I guess. Any copyediting or suggestions would be appreciated in the mean time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll sleep on it. No promises.

We had a good day, methinks. Unschool 04:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems not all editors are happy with your changes. This is why we need something like a character count in WP:LEAD. I said editors rebel when you try to encourage shortening things. If everyone was as good as you we could go with 3000 character count rule. I would like 3500, but could be convinced 3200 would be good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I don't see how a character count limit would make a difference in this situation. The disagreements here would have happened anyway. What is important is how we deal with these differences. You wait and see; I'll bet we come to an accord, in the end, with no limits necessary. Unschool 03:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you were pretty good in your arguments. I'd have been convinced. You may be right. I still think we should tell the editors what four paragraphs means. Keep up the good work and I still encourage you to come check out FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

isn't editing other people's pages a little "uncool"?

I just noticed you rvt'ed on MY user page... if you had read it you would see that IP edits on that page are MY edits too. It is stated quite plainly in fact. So quit it with the TW on user pages. You should know better. Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied to user on his talk page. Unschool 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Lifesign

Hello Unschool... I've seen, that you have left a message on my talkpage in June. Please excuse, that I didnt answer earlier! I was (and I still am) in very bad health. I feel very exhausted at the moment, so that Im not able to make any contributions at the moment. I will leave a message when (if) I recover. With kind regards... Rectilinium —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rectilinium (talk • contribs) 08:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Unschool. You have new messages at Primaryspace's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eiffel Tower

Here is a overly long lead you might want to tackle.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Sometimes I can really understand how leads get long, but that is just amazing. I'll add it to my list. Unschool 00:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well in case it gets reverted before you get a chance to see it, here's the new lead. This was a bit more challenging than FDR & AlexGrandé, because there was a lot of material—significant stuff—that was included in the lead and only in the lead, yet clearly did not belong there. So I had to also move a lot of crap around, resulting in one of the most dramatic diffs I have ever made, yet which only caused a net (negative) change of 124 characters, as content was moved into the body.

This is fun. Unschool 03:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work. We need more like you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You're very kind. Looks like the 3rd shift is coming on. See you next time. Unschool 04:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain FAC 4

Thanks for giving the WP:LEAD your attention. I made one minor reversion. I hope to see you get involved in the FAC discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I left a comment at Talk:Richard_J._Daley_Center#Name_change.3F.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have left comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Other respondents are confused on whether you have completed your copyedit. Could you make a statement in this regard on the discussion page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Tony. I guess I'm still learning the process. Unschool 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I have posted some image alternatives on the discussion page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I am now unwatching your page. So comment there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I think you are now at ease with the image situation and are done editing, you might consider either supporting or opposing the promotion to WP:FA status if you have an opinion about the quality of the article. The protocol would be to put either Support or Oppose on the discussion page followed by a brief rationale and your signature if you are so inclined.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm not excluded from voting? I mean, I made some edits to it, but that doesn't make me a biased source? Okay, I can see that. But Tony, the real problem is this: I've never paid attention to the process before. I don't know whether it meets the criteria or not. I'm going to be getting off line real soon, so I may not have time to weigh in on this yet. What's the deadline by which I must vote? Unschool 03:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the congratulations. It is a big deal to me. It takes WP:CHICAGO three-fifths of the way to a WP:FT for Millennium Park. Two more FAs to go. Also, for our city as we hope to be selected to host the Olympics tomorrow it is important that all our civic offerings are presented in a way that puts our best foot forward.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There are varying levels of credit. I suppose the highest level is those people credited at WP:WBFAN. This is generally a level for co-nominators who are usually primary editors of the article and primary respondents to concerns at WP:FAC. About every two months, I go through the edit counts for my promotions and give {{User Featured Article}} to most people who make about 10 edits or {{User Good Article}} for those who make about 5 edits. These are much lower involvement level threshholds. Many do not even consider it right to use the templates on their pages with modest involvement. Many people have their own headers of FA, GA and FL credits and it is up to your own conscience. Similarly, at WP:RFA people lay claim to have done FAs with a couple of edits. Look at Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) and his efforts at BP Pedestrian Bridge. He did a complete copyedit of the article, and I gave him a co-author credit. His edit count is non-trivial at Crown Fountain, but he was not really involved in the FA and his efforts weren't as critical to the success of the article from what I recall. I might have overcredited Torsodog (talk · contribs) with a co-nom on this one. I would say a complete copyedit is worth a co-nom credit. However, generally co-nom credits are determined in advance of a nomination. For example, I had asked you about reviewing McDonald's Cycle Center. If you want a co-nom, you could do a complete copy edit before I nominate it and then we would be co-nominators. If you want to say on your page you were involved in taking Crown Fountain to FA, that would be true. I am not sure what level you are asking about.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow, that was much more of an answer than I had anticipated. Tony, I don't expect any credit; I put in what, fifteen minutes of time? But you really clarified some things for me; I've often wondered about those stars, and I've assumed that people give them to themselves. I like hearing that you or someone else awards them based on contributions, rather than just letting people self-award. Yes, as you said, I'm sure that some do self-award, but it's good to know that that's not the only way it happens.

Just to clarify: I am not asking for an award for Crown Fountain, and if given one, I would not display it. My contribution was insigificant. I was asking just to learn how the whole thing works. Thanks for explaining. Unschool 05:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Right now at Vincent van Gogh there are about five or six people trying to take the article to WP:FA level. I am probably on the borderline as to whether I should be a co-nom or not even though I have over 100 edits. For some articles, 30 edits before a FAC nom is significant. Everyone claims articles as they see fit. I was a little miffed at Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) at one point because he was claiming articles where he did five edits as his GAs and saying he had done more than me when I was creating articles from scratch. He does good work at cleaning up road articles and it is valuable to the project, but it should be measured on a different scale than what I do. There are no rules on what counts and everyone is free to do what they want. Use http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl and you can look at what he claims and then you might feel more comfortable accepting credit for modest contributions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Flickr

I don't think our image policy changes have made it any easier to find images on flickr. What I did was a normal search. Then, I clicked on the advanced search button and checked the 3 creative commons boxes. The images resulting from this advanced search are all WP eligible. If you can't find any just do a regular search and then write lisence change requests to the copyright holder. That is where most of my images come from.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean, you email the person with the copyright and tell them you want to put the picture on Wikipedia, and then they change the rights? If that is what you do, could you provide me with a sample email so that I could use it as boilerplate? I would love to be able to get some of those pictures in articles. Unschool 04:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I log onto flickr and send a flickr mail such as the following: "Would you consider changing the licensing of the following image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/method606pix/3798033463/ for use on wikipedia to replace the main image in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavilion_projects? In order to use an image on wikipedia its licensing must either be CC-BY (Creative Commons Attribution license) or CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike). You must change the licensing to release the image for use on wikipedia."

Okay, I'll try it. Maybe next weekend. Unschool 04:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

They are not always successful. I think I get about 40-50% of them to change the lisencing. My most recent attempt was "Would you consider changing the licensing of the following image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/photopunk13/3576379861/ for use on wikipedia to replace the main image in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moving_Wall and to replace the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Gorski? In order to use an image on wikipedia its licensing must either be CC-BY (Creative Commons Attribution license) or CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike). You must change the licensing to release the image for use on wikipedia." It has now been over 24 hours with no response. About 2/3rds respond within 24 hours if they are going to change the licensing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Teddy

That lead looks right. He is certainly the type of person who could be an exception to the rule.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your feedback. Unschool 04:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Picture policies

No problem! The difference between the Eiffel Tower and Crown Fountain is that one is simply a structure and one is a work of art. Since Crown Fountain is actually considered a piece of art, images of it are copyrighted by the artist (see {{Non-free 3D art}}). We ran into a similar issue with Cloud Gate. I hope that answers your question? --Torsodog^Talk 04:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It definitely provides me with one more pixel in the overall picture of copyright usage on Wikipedia. Thanks! Unschool 04:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert not necessary

I JUST explained this to someone else. I lost access to that account, and I did not want any personal information kept on that page, that's why. My god. I DID leave an edit summary. Let me do it AGAIN. 72.222.147.24 (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being so...mean...I just get angry when I have to be forced to repeat something. Man, do I feel bad for teachers. Haha. And thank you :) It's possible that my ex...could see it...and well, I don't really want him to...he'd think I'm creepy... :( 72.222.147.24 (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Never mind, I got logged in. (: Ally :) 03:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Missalicia1994

I've deleted their userpage and personal photo, which should take care of the situation, for now at least. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh. So you're one of them, eh? Unschool 03:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

hehe, indeed. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		This barnstar connotes my respect and admiration for your editorial abilities as exhibited by reworking numerous WP:LEADs such as those at Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Alexander the Great. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I deeply appreciate this, but you know, you were the inspiration for this work (which shall continue unabated). I've enjoyed no work on Wikipedia more than this, so this barnstar is just like an extra cherry on top of a permanent sundae. Unschool 04:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexander

Thanks for all your patience in re-writing the lead of Alexander. GK1973 and I were stuck in a spiral of ever-increasing aggravation about minutiae until you came along. It's been a very satisfactory outcome, and proves once and for all that three heads are better than two!

So:

		The Epic Barnstar
		For patience and diligence in re-writing the lead to Alexander the Great. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

MFBT, I am truly appreciative, but the truth of the matter is, you and GK are the ones who made this happen. My knowledge of Ancient History is so incredibly limited that I could never have produced something as good as this; you and GK are the ones who wrote it. I thank you both very much for letting me be a participant. I hope to see you around some time. Unschool 02:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Arrggghhhh! I just realized that I have violated one of my rules! Oh, well, I don't mind, the deed is done, and the intentions were completely honorable. Unschool 03:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Richard J. Daley Center

Sorry, I completely missed your comment on my talk page. The original name of the building was the Chicago Civic Center, per its official site; it was renamed 7 days after Richard J. Daley's death in December 1976. Cheers, Rai•me 15:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you got your answer and see that the page has incorporated the new info.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead Help

Are you interested in taking a look at the WP:LEADs of my next two WP:FAC noms (Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) and McDonald's Cycle Center)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD length

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#Is_there_a_consensus_forming.3F.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You are still a better editor than I. Everything on WP could be better though and I just did some minor stuff. I got bigger fish to fry. I am suppose to do a full copyedit on Vincent van Gogh in the coming days. I have only done his lead and a few subsequent paragraphs so far.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really agree that anointed is necessary in the WP:LEAD, but I won't quibble.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything on WP could be better. That's why we're here, I guess. You'll make sure that Van Gogh article mentions the whole ear thing, right? We wouldn't want that cut from the article, would we? Unschool 05:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is annointed necessary? No, but it adds a lot of meaning with very little expense. Unschool 05:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Unschool. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abce2|This isnot a test 04:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

New Service Award

I saw some discussion on the service award talk page a while back about a need for a new set of service awards so I have come up with this. I am open to just about any suggestion but please do not edit any of the templates themselves without getting permission from me first. Thanks!

Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 01:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Secretary of State map

Thank you very much! I just took a PNG and colored it, but I do think it adds a lot to the page. Thanks for noticing :) Nevermore | Talk 07:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm...

Could you not warn vandals that are about to be warned anyway? I've got a message on my talk page about that, let me see if I can find it if you would like some explamation. (I'm sure you do.) Abce2|This isnot a test 02:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Abce, I've looked at your talk page and I'm totally confused. Could you explain what I'm doing that I should not do? Unschool 02:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I can't find it. But I remember the context. It's just that if it's a regular user, he/she most likely knows what he/she is doing. But feel free to help a new vandal fighter like that. Hope this helps, Abce2|This isnot a test 02:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, maybe it'll help if you give me a diff, because I have no idea whatsover what you're referring to. Is it one of the vandal warnings I've issued? Did I issue one to someone incorrectly, or did I give it to the wrong person? What are we talking about here? Unschool 02:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The pumpkin vandal. Abce2|This isnot a test 02:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked at the history, and now I guess I see the problem. What you see is that you reverted the pumpkin vandal, and when you showed up to warn him, my warning was already there. But you must realize that I did not do this intentionally. I saw the pumpkin vandalism as well, I hit rollback, and (as I always do) went to the anon's talk page and issued a warning. Until you brought this to my intention, I had no idea that you were the one whose reversion was the one recorded. And of course, this happens sometimes to we vandal fighters. I don't know what tools you use, but I use Twinkle, and when I go to issue a warning to someone whom I've reverted (or believe that I have reverted), if another editor has already issued that warning, it tells me and asks me if I want to issue an additional warning, which of course I pretty much never want to do. It doesn't bother me that someone else's warning got there first, I'm just glad that a warning has been issued. I don't know how to stop the issue you're talking about here (having the "wrong" editor issue a warning), but I am willing to listen to any suggestions you have. Unschool 02:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh...okay, sorry then. That happens to me sometimes too. Abce2|This isnot a test 02:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I did that today. Accidentally warning a vandal who I didn't revert, I mean. Good times, good times. Sorry, I'll just go now... Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

I am relatively inexperienced in editing and have tended to stick to pages which I know something about (though I am branching out). One of the pages I started editing was the biography page of David Horrobin. This article has seen a lot of activity recently, with one editor User:Keepcalmandcarryon adding a lot of negative material (as, of course is his right). I feel that this has upset the balance of the article and would like to add references relating to other viewpoints, but my edits get reverted and I am accused of attempted whitewash. We have discussed this endlessly on the talk page but I can't seem to make any progress. At the moment we are tussling over whether the phrase "snake oil salesman" should be included in the lead and are unlikely to reach agreement. Since you have indicated that you might be able to help on lead-related issues and disputes I wonder whether you could take a look and advise me whether I should take this to dispute resolution or let it go. The relevent discussion is on Talk:David Horrobin#Richmond Obits (both of them) vs. other obits. (I have posted this on WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Biography dispute (not a living person) but without much response - maybe you could comment there?) Thanks for your help! Beechnut (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I have not been around to help; I've been on an atypically long sabbatical (the first of many, I'm afraid).

Anyway, this is not one of those cut-and-dried situations where one party is categorically wrong. I understand your feelings, but I must say that I find the current version of the article to be perfectly acceptable. Per WP:LEAD, the obituaries definitely need to be mentioned in the lead, as they get a large portion of the article below. Inclusion of the snake oil quote would not be acceptable without it also being noted that the same were controversial, but as written now it is fine. Could it be written without the direct quote? Sure, but to be perfectly frank, it makes a hell of a good closer for the lead; simply put, its placement constitutes good writing, in my humble opinion. When you included that line about the "character assassination", it didn't read as well. One possible idea would be to either replace or supplant the general comments about the obituaries being controversial with the "character assassination" reference. In other words, I think the last line of the lead should end as it does now, but you may be able to change the beginning of that sentence.

Looks like you're a sharp thinker, and newbie or not, looks like you'll be a great asset to the project. Nice to make your acquaintance. Unschool 01:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Unschool, thanks for getting back to me and for your kind words. I can see what you are saying has some justification - the snake-oil quote does fit with the rest of the article, but only because Keepcalmandcarryon was busy filling it with all the negative stuff he could find and reverting any edits I made. Rather than get into an edit war, I tried to focus on just one or two aspects and get consensus by discussion, which failed. So basically, I was outflanked. This isn't what I thought Wikipedia was about. It's sad, but I'm just going to close my account and do something else with my time. Take care. Beechnut (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Back for a while

Hi Unschool :), I hope you are doing well. I'm actually back... at least for a certain time. Im still in bad health, but since a week I feel good enough to make new contributions. So if you have a wish or any suggestions, please dont hesitate to leave a message on my talk page. With kind regards Rectilinium'♥' 05:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed major reforms to decade articles

Hi - I noticed you have contributed recently to one or more of the decade articles (1990s, 1960s etc). I am proposing some major changes to these articles, as I have outlined in Talk:1990s#Suggested_reform_of_decade_articles, and I would be interested in hearing your views in the first instance. Thanks. Kransky (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain

Thanks for being one of the many hands that helped raise Crown Fountain from WP:GA to WP:FA status.

This user helped promote Crown Fountain to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony, though as I've stated, I don't really think I deserve any recognition for the eleven minutes I spent on the article. Unschool 01:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for editor assistance

Hi. It looks as though you have been on vacation. If so I hope you had a great time!

Your expertise in NPOV & Lead disputes would be appreciated at the English Defense League article. The arguments are set out in the talk page. To summarise, there is a dispute regarding the use of the word "political" in the opening sentence. The editor inserting this claims consensus and satisfactory evidence of a WP:RS. This is disputed. There are a number of editors who have agreed to a compromise describing them as a "right wing organisation" but omitting the disputed reference to political. The objections to "political" concern WP:NOR, WP:Weight, WP:Synth & WP:Verifiability, as well as lack of definitive sourcing describing them as political. It is also a grammar taut, although that is not the main issue. It has not even been possible to place the pov-intro tag without dispute. Any advice you can provide would be appreciated. Regards, Leaky Caldron 16:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. You are right, there has been a breakthrough today, although Ctpnono has raised a second ANI about Verbal I am hopeful the compromise I have suggested will be acceptable to all. My concern (after initially not accepting the "right wing" description) was always simply the lack of a source saying that they are political. I know you've made a point about that, but simply giving any organisation an inappropriate veneer of authenticity is not what the Project should be doing. (for what its worth they literally are just street thugs at the moment).

At least the source I have found uses expert evidence of their "political tensions" and Verbal seems content. Until that TV interview, political had never been used in any article in the UK.

Just as a matter of interest, where do you stand on the "taut" argument? Leaving aside the source issue, "political" is generally associated with "right wing". So "right wing political" without the comma, makes "political" redundant. The dictionary describes it as "semantically vacuous". Is that a reasoned argument or is WP not that bothered about liguistic precision? Leaky Caldron 16:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling it a taut, to me, is an extreme way of saying that it is redundant, but that may be a difference in American vs. British perception of the term. To my ears, to call it redundant is to call its writer sloppy or careless, but to call it a taut implies he is a fool for not recognizing the circularity of his argument. Now, is it actually redundant? That may possibly turn on the definition of "political", but I suspect that for most usages, yes, it is redundant. So should it be excised? Oh, I truly am a believer in well-edited writing, but I also recognize that the phrase has a colloquial appeal to the masses, who do not always follow the meaning of those who write with an economy of words in mind. So I find its inclusion neither offensive nor requisite.

I fear you may be missing my point about the "veneer of authenticity", as well as your involvement. It is not for us to decide if the Project should be providing this veneer; our charge is to write what others are saying. If The Times and The Economist write articles that provide cachet to the EDL, then we are not to concern ourselves that these "thugs" do not merit such. To do so is to take on a point of view that is most certainly not neutral. Do not concern yourself with how Wikikpedia makes them look, simply report how reliable sources make them look. Unschool 16:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not trying to suck you back into this in anyway, but you do raise the very point that I have argued most strenuously about; reliable sources. There are no published sources saying outright that EDL is political. The sources provided before today are here: . No where that I can see is political ascribed to EDL in these articles. They do not therefore satisfy any test for inclusion. If you tell me I'm wrong, I would willingly accept them and move on. But using poor sources IS wrong. So we are/were left with the inference via "right wing". "Taut" is not pejorative or critical as far as I know. It is simply this; [[Tautology (rhetoric}|tautology]] or Pleonasm. People may see criticism in the word, but it's the technicality I've been trying to explain to the editors.

In his talk page reply to you I suspect Verbal was not aware that I had invited you to look things over. Thanks again.Leaky Caldron 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should school yourself on this group, and also on how not to be patronising and insulting, and read WP:LEAD, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. WP:LEAD especially doesn't say what you are presenting it as saying. Verbal chat 18:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I gave up my time today to be told I am insulting and patronizing. Maybe I should learn more about the group before digging in deeper, but regardless of how it came across to you, it was never my intention to talk down to anyone, and when I realized you apparently took something as offensive, I apologized sincerely. I don't know if you are as angry as you are coming across on this end, but you win. I've had next to no time for Wikipedia over the past month, and your clear presumption of bad faith on my part is totally disheartening (not that that's your problem). Verbal, it's clear from a brief look at your record that you're a fine editor who is well-respected and has accomplished much here. But none of us are infallible, and today you erred, completely misreading a fellow editor. I hope your article turns out well; I'm glad it's not something currently important to me. If I should learn more about the EDL and if that should lead to me understanding your perspective, I will unhesitatingly drop by your page and let you know—I'm actually quite good at admitting my mistakes. But for now I think I'll steer clear. Take care. Unschool 19:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite the harsh words here there is hardly a cigarette paper between the content suggestions that you have made and the changes I have been making in the last hour and which V. is now assisting with. I'm grateful to you for your help today. Take a quick look at the article and I don't think it is that for away from your suggestion. Leaky Caldron 19:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I will say that the current version of the opening sentence is an improvement; it finally meets the requirements of WP:LEAD to clearly identify the significance of the organization in the first sentence. However, after the first 18 words, it seems to me, it reads very awkwardly. But because I recognize that you're trying to come to a compromise, I say, if it works for all parties, then fine.

Sorry about the way I took my leave, but I was really taken aback by Verbal's statements to and about me. It doesn't bother me to have someone lambast my ideas or proposals, but I'm unaccustomed to having someone impugn my motives or methods. In those few cases where someone has misunderstood me in the past, I've always been able to get them to see the sincerity of my intentions and we've moved forward. I remain completely baffled by Verbal's analysis of my participation, yet I can see from his work with you that he is sincere in his attempt to work things out, so his reaction to me is really not of any consequence. Best of luck in coming to a conclusion at EDL. Unschool 01:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit?

WP:CHIFTD now has four WP:FAs. It needs five to become an WP:FT. Jay Pritzker Pavilion has FA-quality content, but needs a copyedit and reorganization. I am having trouble responding tho the current WP:PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1‎ because I am not that great an organizer of articles outside of my expertise. Would you be interested. Maybe you could get on board an article for an FA credit as a co-author.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion?

Per your offer at WP:EA, would you care to take a quick look at the repetitive edits at Northwestern Mutual Financial Network? Looks to me like User:Lucybaby0928 is building a full-blown advertisement, but I've reverted it twice and that's it for now. Thanks, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 06:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

CD, I am sorry that I was unable to check on this earlier; I'm actually leaving Wikipedia for a while, but when I came on to put my Wikibreak notice I saw your post and had to check it out.

Truthfully, while the article was a problem before, it looks like you and some others have done a good job in cleaning it up. I've touched it up a bit, but it was a far cry from the article that had you concerned when you posted two or three days ago. Sorry to have let you down by not being there when you wanted the help. Best of luck to you. Unschool 16:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, nice job. Enjoy the break. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 02:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Black Ivy League

I have nominated Black Ivy League, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Ivy League. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Racepacket (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting Users

My edits on the American University of Antigua page are being reverted by users without any or little discussion. I added another section to the page concerning student safety, since one student has been sexually assaulted and another college student was just killed on Antigua.

The user Tiptoncarlson reverted my information then when I initiated a dialog instead of discussion he simply admits to his bias and then attacks me personally.

ZQPM2941 is once again publishing his own research

I don't think this is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TiptonCarlson (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

TiptonCarlson is reverting information. I believe this is a clear demonstration of your bias intentions. You state that I am using my own research yet all the references are from a reliable resources including "Wikinews"

Please add my entire edit back in full. One of AUA's female students was Sexually Assaulted and you are covering up the truth of this information from potential students researching this institution. Another student was killed, this January.

This is the article I posted and it clearly shows there is NO original research.

Student Safety on Antigua

Below is information potential AUA students need to know about Antigua. Antigua is an ideal location for studying; serene, secure and sustaining. Antigua provides AUA students with the most modern comforts and familiar lifestyle in the Caribbean, in a stable and safe environment. [1]

American University of Antigua student sexually assaulted.[2] The student was on her way home when a man jumped into her car. She pulled over to the side of the road and stopped her vehicle, at which time Jeffers virtually pulled the lever of her car seat and jumped on top of her. He put his hands over her eyes and started to squeeze into her eyes with his fingers. Jeffers took off his clothes and threatened to kill the woman if she screamed. The young woman got a hold of the vehicle’s cigarette lighter and tried to burn Jeffers with it. He, however, managed to knock it from her hand. Jeffers then placed his penis in the woman’s face and told her to engage in oral sex. The victim pulled away her head, at which time the convicted man pulled off her blouse and panties. He held her down and as he was about to rape her, a security pickup with a number of police officers drove up. Upon seeing the lawmen, Jeffers ran from the vehicle and the area naked.

Student murdered on Antigua.[3] She was a 29 years old California student and she was murdered on Antigua January 19, 2010.

Female doctor and her husband killed on Antigua during their honeymoon[4],[5]

Antigua has murder rate three times higher than New York! [6]

Antigua is known as "Death Island"! [7]

Welcome to Antigua: Welcome to Rape, Bribes, Money-Laundering, Corruption. [8]

Two Cruise ship lines, Start Clipper and Carnival, stop going to Antigua because of crime.[9],[10]

The Caribbean still represents the second highest region outside of Sub-Saharan Africa infected by the HIV/AIDS virus![11] Please be safe and follow all safety precautions given to you during orientation.

ZQPM2941 (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course I am "bias(ed)". I work for this school. As anyone with half an ounce of curiousity could figure out. Unfortunately Mr. aua-med.org, you are posting information in an encyclopedia page which has nothing to do with AUA College of Medicine. I suggest posting your ramblings on a page talking about the island of Antigua. Or even better Crime on the Island of Antigua. This info has nothing to do with AUA.TiptonCarlson 23:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

200.7.56.176 (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

There's a lot I don't know about Wikipedia operations so maybe you can help, since you say you're good at Point of View problems. I was reading the article on Ronald Reagan and noticed the man never did anything wrong, but did everything right. It says. In my opinion its a complete white wash. Noting it's a locked site and editing under fire is probably a job and a half, I tried to change a modest sentence "[[Termed the Reagan Revolution, his presidency would reinvigorate American morale[80][81] and reduce the people's reliance upon government.]] It was immediately removed. In the discussion section titled POV I tried to point out that such a statement is ridiculous unless proven by statistics and they replied the sentence was from a good 'liberal' source and that I was a "Reagan hater." Any ideas how I can get my point across to HappyMe22? Richrakh````

Request for Editor Assistance

Hello, you were listed at the Dispute Resolution website as an editor offering to provide assistance. Could you look at the current DR situation at Talk:General of the Armies? Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics census

Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.

help

Hey, hopefully you can help provide a neutral point of view in a problem I (and others) are having regarding contributing to the improvement of articles related to our community (the city of New Rochelle). So many great articles have been removed from the website. Many other articles have been unnecessarily focused on so as to significantly detract from their overall quality, or to simply redirect quality content into "oblivion". My community of Residence Park in New Rochelle is well structured, historically relevant, factually correct and well sourced yet it is being redirected for no reason other than to remove it from the site under a seemingly innocent policy abiding way. I'm trying to create a helpful resource for my middle school students to learn about our local history and hopefully expand the interest in American History in general. -76.116.16.225 (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, hopefully you can help provide a neutral point of view in a problem I (and others) are having regarding contributing to the improvement of articles related to our community (the city of New Rochelle). So many great articles have been removed from the website. Many other articles have been unnecessarily focused on so as to significantly detract from their overall quality, or to simply redirect quality content into "oblivion". My community of Residence Park in New Rochelle is well structured, historically relevant, factually correct and well sourced yet it is being redirected for no reason other than to remove it from the site under a seemingly innocent policy abiding way. I'm trying to create a helpful resource for my middle school students to learn about our local history and hopefully expand the interest in American Histoy in general. --24.189.30.186 (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Unschool is on a Wikibreak and is not available until sometime in Summer 2010. -- œ^™ 15:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

ps. Unschool - btw [7] (there's been some changes) ;)

Request for Editor Assistance

Hello there, I am new to Wikipedia and just edited my first article. I added an "original plot" section to God of War III, as I think that the vision of the series creator is relevant information. I am not a native speaker, but I think my English isn't too bad. A fellow editor from Sydney (IP 125.xx) keeps deleting my section instead of improving it due to "poor grammar and weak, colloquial language". I think that this is not very polite, and the user's history shows that he regularly uses the same comment when changing other edits. So did user "Spartancourage", who was blocked for being the new account of user "Asgardian", who was banned. Can you please have a look into this? I would also appreciate your feedback on the quality of my "original plot" section, which I have posted on the talk page of God of War III. Many thanks in advance.

Reviewer notice

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.