User talk:Unschool/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Kozo Tsoboi

I'm slightly confused. This bombing in 1864, involving "Allies". Of what campaign is this part of? Surely not any Sino-Japanese war? I don't know enough to know what to ask. I just need a little bit more information in the article.

The attack on Shimonoseki was part of the foreign incursions campaign by the European powers in retaliation for attacks on Western shipping by individual Japanese states (not unlike the Barbary Coast expeditions by the US during the Tripolitan War of 1805 regarding Mediterranian piracy). I'd thought it was clarified by the Bombardment of Shimonoseki although an internal link to the conflict would of probably made sense. Thanks for pointing that out. :) MadMax 08:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Mumbai marathon

Thanx, had some problems linking it to the Singapore Marathon..new to wiki. (Saurabhb 22:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Lurleen

It is a valid insertion - many Republicans (and some Dems) have expressed the view that Hillary needs to prove that she is her own woman and that Bill won't be controlling from the shadows like George did with Lurleen. PMA 09:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

---

It was mentioned in a discussion of the possible candidates in '08 that i read - i made an error of judgement in including it for which i apologise. PMA 10:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And I apologize for getting so hot. I only now looked back and saw that my original explanatory note did not register in the history log. All that showed up was a single quotation mark ("), which means that, however it happened, you did not have my explanation. Again, I am sorry. Unschool 10:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative education

Hello, My name is Master Scott Hall (you can call me Scott). I am relatively new contributing to Wikipedia, though I have been a user of it for some time. I am currently soliciting additional participation in a WikiProject that been launched on the subject of alternative education.

Before finding Wikipedia, my wife and I were seriously considering, but not quite convinced, to home educate our children. After discovering the depth, scope, and long-term goals of Wikipedia, as well as the individuals driving it, I am convinced that WP has the potential to revolutionize homeschooling and other forms of alternative education. I am also convinced that some form of home education is the right choice for my family. I have, however, been somewhat discouraged by the oversight of home education in most of the education related projects on WP. There are many potential reasons for this discrepency, but I have resolved to try to do something about it.

Although I personally have very limited experience in building complex WikiProjects, -templates, -portals, etc., I am confident that the right team has been assembled to tackle these issues. I have noticed that you seem to have an interest and some experience in this area. I would like to invite you to join this effort to make Wikipedia the resource for the home education of our children. If you are interested, please visit the WikiProject page we have set up. Interest and feedback to date have been very promising. We hope you will consider joining our team. Thank you. Master Scott Hall 22:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: The proposed project on Homeschooling was met with a very positive response. As a result, the project has been ugraded to an official WikiProject and can be found at WikiProject Alternative education. We have several experienced Wikipedians on board, as well as some new faces. We still need contributors with backgrounds in education, education theory and philosophy, and specific alternative education methods, such as homeschooling, charter schools, and E-learning from both teacher and student perspectives. There is also a lack of quality resources regarding anti-alternative education issues. If are interested in contributing or just have an interest, please visit the project page, or if you prefer, ask us a question. Thank you again, Master Scott Hall 18:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Training Day

I went ahead and changed the description of the Story part for the Training Day movie. If it looks good to you, as a more 'encyclopedia' entry, perhaps you could remove the cleanup tag for the movie.

marginal sea

"I canot see how Japanese groups argue that as a marginal sea of the Pacific Ocean, the sea should be named for Japan as an argument is different from if there is no Japan, then there is no sea. ... Kokiri 1 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)" this is near the top of [1], and about 2/3 down the page at [2], & there was no response to it that i can see, & only the former has remained since then. the definition of marginal sea is a sea bordered by an island/peninsula, so it does seem to be saying the same thing twice. & also note that of the 10 marginal seas, from my rough count, only 3 or 4 are named for the marginal feature, the rest have neutral names or are named after the continent side. of course, japan's argument is japan's argument, so feel free to say it one way or the other. Appleby 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Blissus leucopterus

Hi, if you need more information in the short run, the external links are quite good and I added another. I'm no insect expert, I just use what research I can pull up. I probably won't have a chance to expand the article soon, but if you want to use the external links they contain most of the needed info. Thanks for you interest. - Taxman ^Talk 14:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Spiro Agnew

It depresses me to find that an educator should ignore the long tradition of the Vice-Presidency as a dead-end job, perhaps strongest when Theodore Roosevelt "took the veil". But I suppose that any nominee for Vice-President is papabile at least as a dark horse, so I took the dispute out rather than attempting to elaborate. Septentrionalis 01:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not one is "papabile" is in the perception of observers, not just in the heart of the man. My statement had to do with the aspirations of the Vice-Presidents themselves, not with the comments of contemporary pundits. Does anyone doubt that the first three vice-presidents, Adams, Jefferson, & Burr, all lusted after the presidency? Of course not. But even after the ratification of the 12th Amendment, which largely created the "dead-end" vice-presidency, who can say that the occupants of the vice-presidency did not still aspire to the highest office? Indeed, given the almost complete lack of responsibilities prior to the post WW-II changes in the office (with, I would suggest, Nixon, Mondale, and Cheney making the greatest leaps forward), what other reason would anyone have for accepting the #2 spot other than to hope to occupy the White House?

I assert that most of these men--like most politicians in Washington--had egos big enough to hope to become President, but probably recognized that they lacked the star power to get there by a more traditional route (e.g., becoming Secretary of State).

And what do you mean, "the American Vice-Presidency was not expected to lead to the Presidency before 1960". Is it "expected" to now ? Did anyone expect Dan Quayle to become President? I am totally perplexed by your statement. If you mean that we have a greater expectation that the VP be qualified to become President in the event of a vacancy since WWII or since 1963, then yes, I would agree. But as stated, your comment borders on a non sequitur.

As to the comment "Most countries that have Presidents have Vice-Presidents"; as I indicated, I am unaware of any, but I do not claim to know every title in the government of every country. Please lighten the load of my ignorance and share with me some of these countries who also have "Vice Presidents". And if they do have them, do they exist, as does the American VP, almost exclusively for the purpose of succeeding to the Presidency in the event of a vacancy? Unschool 02:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, despite the tone of my reply, I must agree that your actual edit is an improvement. My response was both to your comment in the history and to your note on my user page, paticularly the paternalistic tone of your "It depresses me . . ." comment. But your edit stands up as cleaner and less speculative than it was earlier. Unschool 02:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be paternalistic; there's too much of that going around Wikipedia. (You may wish to consider your own edit summary, btw). But do you really think that George Clinton or Jack Garner or even Andrew Johnson still aspired to the Presidency once they were VP? They'd had their turn at the greasy pole and failed. Septentrionalis 02:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not Andy Johnson—he would have had to sober up long enough to think about it. And of course, he didn't have to think about it, he got it whether he wanted it or not. But Garner? Heck yeah he still aspired to it. If memory serves he actually had his cronies throw his name into the ring in 1940 for the ostensible reason of simply being opposed to any third term for anyone. And he had made a run earlier, though I don't remember what year it was. I mean, why else would he give up being Speaker of the House for the Vice-Presidency? Certainly not for any increase in power. Nope, it was just because it was one step closer to the possibility of obtaining real power. And to a lesser extent, I think that this was true for most VPs. Sure, we see them as candidates for an 19th century version of "The Surreal Life" (a repulsive show that I've tried to stop my family from watching), but they probably saw themselves as serious leaders. Unschool 02:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

David Davis

Hi, I did a simple re-order of the the list because I felt that, of those listed, the one I listed at the top was the most prominent living bearer of that name. Gunray

Thanks

Hey, thanks. You were right. I took the post off the discussion page so it's not an issue and also to keep the page short. Trovare 05:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner on Talk:Sea of Japan. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. --Questionfromjapan 23:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As to my uncivil comments—please note that I apologized for them less than 10 minutes after I made them. Again, sorry. But accusing me of instigating an edit war? I have never done this, on this or any other article. I go out of my way to use discussion pages to avoid edit wars. In fact, if you check the history, I have only made one edit to this page in the last six months. How on earth can you accuse me of starting an edit war? Unschool 01:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This tag is an official warming tag of Wikipedia. Therefore, the face of warning is fixed and I cannot change it. Please accept only the line "Please remain civil". Thank you.--Questionfromjapan 02:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please remove warning tags from my talk page. If you continue to tag those on my talk page, then it is a "User page vandalism".--Questionfromjapan 02:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the warning tag from my talk page. And I would like to answer your quesiton. "Copy and paste" does not matter on the warning tag. Any warning tags are generally prohibited from removing by oneself. And Removing warnings on own talk page is clearly vandalism, except for clearly attack on user. That is the reason why I asked you remove the "Copy and Paste". Thank you.--Questionfromjapan 08:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms

Interiot

New vote over Sea of Japan edit

Hi, I've started a new vote with the proposal I outlined beforehand. I would appreciate it if you could head on over to the talk page and vote. Thanks, John Smith's 14:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

About Ed

If you're really that frustrated and feel his participation has genuinely been disruptive, you may want to comment here, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ed_Poor_(2); others have had similar experiences, see the talk page. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I just read through the page. If someone wrote a page like that about me I'd be so upset I'd never come back. Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with anything that anyone had to say there. But I'm just too part-time about this to get involved in such disputes. This was my first problem with Ed, and I think it was pretty minor. Frankly, I've been more upset about William Connelly—who is clearly an intelligent guy—just ignoring points on a talk page, then reverting to the way he likes it. William made the point that "Ed doesn't know this stuff [climatology]", and I wonder if that's why he won't engage my discussion points--because I lack a PhD in something that William does for a living. Ed probably is an ignorant clown, but I'm more likely to laugh off behaviour like that than the actions of someone who is an expert in a field and thinks that "non-experts" are not worth his time to engage. I don't know, maybe Ed will piss me off enough to revisit his page. I'll keep it bookmarked, in case I need it. But I'm just not into inquisitions and stuff. Maybe that's just part of being so inexperienced here. Anyway, thanks for introducing me to another side of Wik that I had never seen before. Unschool 04:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

River

• Reichenbach, the same river where Sherlock Holmes was fighting with Moriarty. The Reichenbach waterfall is below, and I was walking along this river till its beginning in the Grosse Scheidegg.
• I will upload unmodified images under GFDL. Please let me known what was wrong. Audriusa 07:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see the category commons:Category:Reichenbach. I am not expert in the image composing. If you can do better, please help. Audriusa 08:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bjorn Lomborg

Sorry. Of course you are correct and I should have written "Italics" instead of "Quotes" in the edit summary. However, you then wrote "But I think with the italics more people—especially Lomborg's critics—would like it." That's my point: with the italics in, the sentence is POV and panders to BL's critics; without the italics in it simply is factual. I won't argue that the word "official" has implied italics or quotes. That would be too silly :) Vincent 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that people would like something may imply that it's POV, but it may also imply that it has struck a fair balance, something that everyone can agree upon. But it's such a minor point, I'm dropping it. Unschool 06:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to my edit of Lomborg's scientific dishonesty case, you accuse me of "disgusting POV": pretty strong language. The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty in their press release on the matter makes it clear that they are not reversing their finding. Yet Lomborg says in his press release, "The committee has acknowledged that the former verdict of my book was invalid." Perhaps it's wrong to call this "spin" when it would be more accurate to call it an outright lie? Or am I missing something? Your help here will be appreciated. Philip Machanick 05:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Philip, the first matter that got my attention was the statement, "On 12 March 2004, the Committee formally decided not to act further on the complaints, reasoning that they had already found Lomborg not guilty of deliberate dishonesty, and that a new investigation into the complaints against Lomborg would be likely to arrive at the "same conclusion" [3]. Lomborg has spun this event as overturning the original findings, which the reader may use as a data point to judge his honesty[4]. This last sentence is entirely non-encyclopedic. "the reader may use . . . to judge his honesty"? That is throwing down the gauntlet, not writing for an encyclopedia, and, regardless of the facts of the matter, it doesn't belong in here.

But now, on to the facts. If Lomborg is wrong to say that DCSD's findings were "overturned", then the point is a fine one, merely a matter of semantics. The fact is that DCSD's findings were invalidated and set aside by its overseeing authority, and no longer have any standing. A great many of Lomborg's critics have tried to draw a distinction between outright exhonoration and merely having the case remitted back to the DCSD. But there is no meaningful distinction. If you have any doubts, read this report by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation:, [3], and pay special attention to the final sentence. It says straight up that DCSD's findings against Lomborg are invalidated. The charges mean nothing. Now DCSD did have the right to reinvestigate, but they chose not to do so. They say it would have been a waste of their time, some of us suspect it had more to do with the scathing review that MSTI did on them, which found that they failed to use sound practices in their investigation of Lomborg.

Philip, perhaps you were unaware of these facts. If so, I apologize for my tone. I don't know if Lomborg is right or not, about what he says in his book or in what he says in his defense. All I know is that the authorities who have investigated him have not been able to lay a finger on him thus far, and in the process of trying to make him look bad, his enemies come across to me as a bit irrational and unfair. Unschool 07:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The page you pointed to is one I had read. I missed the following: "The Ministry explained at a later date that the decision of the Ministry must be taken to mean that the UVVU’s decision of 6 January 2003 is invalid." So I see your point. However the article as it stands lacks nuance as to the nature of the controversy. The Ministry's finding [4] for example requires it to be judged as a social science work. In their view it is unfair if someone is judged by a committee chaired by someone from outside their home discipline. That is an odd argument, because his book attacks areas which are outside his home discipline. The Economist, one of his chief backers, also claims it should [5] not be judged as a scientific work at all, which is interesting, because they consistently represent him as a "statistician", not as a "political scientist". Lomborg also represents himself as a "statistician" (perhaps this has a different meaning in Denmark?) which to most would indicate he is presenting this as a scientific work, so it should be judged as such. It is also clear that the committee has not actually withdrawn its finding. If you want to see a stronger critique, read the rebuttals of the rebuttals of the Scientific American debate [6], where some of the scientistists involved have taken more time to dissect his anti-rebuttal. The real problem here is that if someone inexpert in an area writes a tome with thousands of footnotes, it takes an enormous amount of time to debunk it. You have to track down a substantial number of the references, show how they are taken out of context, and redo the calculations to show how they are wrong. If you do a small fraction, your rebuttal can easily be nitpicked. If you do the whole thing, you end up with a 200-page book which no one reads. What's more, a large body of correct facts doesn't constitute a correct argument. You have to know which of the facts are questionable in the light of later discoveries, or are not representative of the totality of work in the field. If it is given publicity by a largely ignorant press, it doesn't become a valid piece of work.

The fact that top scientists regard something as bogus doesn't automatically mean they are right, but it also doesn't mean they are wrong.Philip Machanick 01:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

From Joe Hall

hey unschool, so far we agree about non schooling. Home learnig is great. I thought I had corrected the TR stuff, guess not. Im a huge TR fan and plan on writing a motivational book about him thanks Joehall45@juno.com

Hey, Joe. Thanks for your comments. Say, you may be even newer to Wikipedia than I, so let me share something with you. When you make comments on someone's user page, you place your comments on that user's discussion page, not their actual user page. No worries. Unschool 04:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Illinois universities

Thanks for the polite edit summary. [7] My main point was/is that the Illinois article doesn't need to be a list article for universities as it was in the past. It already points to the main list and in the past 6 months or year anons routinely add / subtract their favorite / least favorite school from the deliberately short list. I was simply restoring the article to the balance that it had prior to some anon swapping in SIU. Illinois is a 45k article that is already list heavy. --Dual Freq 05:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Feel free to trim things down. I was merely correcting a factual error, but then I went a bit further, attempting (perhaps unnecessarily) to clarify things. Unschool 08:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Cross-posting

Please don't cross-post the same message to both my user talk page and the article's talk page. I have the article watchlisted, and the only thing that such cross-posting does is muddy the water if we have two separate discussions going on. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My general rule of thumb is that if it's related to the user specifically, then it belongs on their user talk page. If it's something that is of more general concern, even if it also is likely of concern to the user, then post it to the article's talk page and skip the user talk page. More than likely, the user in question has the page watchlisted anyway, especially if they show up in the edit history. And besides that, since Wikipedia works on consensus, the opinion of the group is the important thing, rather than any one individual user. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Daniel Boone (disambiguation)

Please do not edit in contravention to established formatting guidelines. The MoS:DAB guidelines were formulated through discussion and consensus amongst many editors over a long period of time. If you feel that the current formatting guidelines are problematic, please voice your concerns on the MoS:DP talk page. --Muchness 02:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair criticism, perhaps my edit did not give due consideration. To be specific, my problems were that a) dab page entries should consists of a sentence fragment with no period at the end of the line, and b) for links to biographies, it's standard to include birth and death dates in parentheses after the wikilink. I've restored your wording with the above minor issues addressed. Regards. --Muchness 03:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

non English characters

Thanks for your offer, but for the most part, i have retired from Wikipedia. There are many reasons, but one of the biggest is all the POV passed off as politically correctness. Most of it stems from the very topic you invited me into. While i am not opposed to the use of diacritics and other foreign characters in titles and in the main article body, what I am opposed to is their use when they are the least common spelling in English. It seems to me that most of the people pushing for the "non-English" characters are not native English speakers and have their own agenda. I feel like non-English characters are being shoved down my throat with no regard to current wikipedia policies about article naming (which clearly state that the most common spelling in English be used). Wikipedia is for the layman and the most recognisable spellings to the layman are to be used. That is wikipedia policy. Masterhatch 01:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some articles worthy of note:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions Go there and read through that. And this Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). One line from that i really like is this: Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form.

I see you have already discovered this Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics).

For some older discussions and votes on the matter, try these articles:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format
• Talk:Quebec Nordiques
• Talk:Teemu Selänne
• Talk:Marian Gaborik
• Talk:Jaromir Jagr
• Talk:Jaroslav Spacek

If you need anthing, don't hestitate to message me. I don't log onto wikipedia very often anymore (if had, i would have been able to toss in my two cents and a vote for that article you pointed out), but i still do check every once in a while. I think wikipedia has great potential, but currently, everywhere i look it reeks of POV and useless lists. Anyways, I hope you don't suffer the same wiki-stress fate that I did. Good luck and Happy New Year. Masterhatch 01:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

CaPs

I reviewed the caps in united states presidential line of succession. thanks a lot!!! -- johno95 19:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)