My user page redirects here because I doubt that anyone would care to read about me or my interests.

I'll attempt to respond to any questions or constructive criticisms pertaining to my participation in the Wikipedia community as soon as possible.

Thanks for dropping by.

—Lifeisunfair

Thanks for getting this one off the dime (finally). I just didn't know how it should be done. hydnjo talk 15:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'm glad to help. I learned of this dispute via the request for comment, but I ended up becoming as passionately involved as many of the original parties. I'm glad that it (hopefully) has concluded. Now we just have to wait for an admin to move the article back to Gasoline. I can understand why some might be reluctant to do so, lest they invoke the wrath of the Petrol faction. (Of course, that applies to most situations of this nature.) Ideally, someone from the UK or another British English country (Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) will do the honors...er, I mean honours. —Lifeisunfair 18:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To see deja vu all over again take a look at Yoghurt. Yoghurts my eyes but maybe that's just me. Kind of the same thing happened there. Some user moved Yogurt to Yoghurt and nobody noticed for a while (about a month). And then when a user tried to move it back all hell broke loose. The difference being that not as much attention was paid to the vote as was in the Gasoline/Petrol debate and of course the organized (or is it organised) side won out, so it remains Yoghurt. I just don't like the stealthy way that it is being done. Cheers I mean regards of course,  ;-) hydnjo talk 21:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and take a look at the "See also" bs that's I seem to have triggered at Yoghurt. ;-) hydnjo talk 21:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been trying not to involve myself in the great Yogurt/Yoghurt debate, but my curiosity finally drew me in. It isn't quite the same as the Gasoline/Petrol situation, but it's very similar. See my assessment below. —Lifeisunfair 04:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My sincere congratulations. While some (including me) were becoming silly and frivolous, you held fast and especially held your (our) ground in the face of some pounding criticism. I'm impressed with your integrity and regard for this project. You have, by your example, shown more than you imagine. Thanks, hydnjo talk 02:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your praise means more to me than I can possibly express. It feels wonderful to know that someone appreciates my efforts and cares enough to convey such warm sentiments. Thank you! —Lifeisunfair 04:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, you certainly took poor Ed behind the woodshed today. Your point by point rebuttal of his comments were ... well, ... on point. I found myself feeling however, that you had him on the ropes long enough. On another topic, your editing skills and your "street smarts" here seem to belie your time on board. I really don't care on way or the other as to whether you are a reincarnation or not, I'm just happy to see someone being as constructive as you have been. And, if you're not a reincarnation then you're one hell of a fast study! ;-) hydnjo talk 19:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've never been able to allow standing arguments to remain uncontested. I don't need to have the last word, but I can't resist countering substantive (or even seemingly substantive) retorts.

Regarding the latter topic, this is my first and only Wikipedia identity. I have, however, contributed to various Internet communities (and occasionally dabbled in webmastery) since late 1996. And of course, before diving in, I attempted to learn as much about the Wikipedia editing process as possible (via observation). I still ended up making some silly mistakes in the beginning (such as "moving" an article by copying and pasting it), but I haven't done too much damage. :-) —Lifeisunfair 20:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well anyway your contributions from day one didn't appear to be the work of a neophyte but then I didn't realize/realise that you had the benefit of pre-study. I'm sure our paths will join and cross over time. Regards, hydnjo talk 21:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Who gets to remove this Pagename from WP:RFC, anyone or an admin? hydnjo talk 15:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I wouldn't feel comfortable removing it without some sort of mandate. —Lifeisunfair 15:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

De-listing from WP:RFC and WP:RM

The following Q & A is from WP:HD:

How does an article listed on these pages (specifically: was Petrol (Gasoline) and is now Gasoline) ultimately get de-listed? hydnjo talk 20:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If there is no doubt at all that the dispute is over, you can just remove it. It is helpful when people do this, as otherwise RFC becomes very congested. You should list it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article content disputes archive. Cheers, smoddy 20:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Go for it! You deserve the satisfaction. ;-) hydnjo talk 22:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't honestly say that "there is no doubt at all that the dispute is over," so I think that we should leave the RfC in place for the time being. The page move has transpired, however, so I will remove that request. —Lifeisunfair 02:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about pulling Uncle Ed's gasoline (petrol) and petrol (gasoline) listing from WP:RFC. It adds nothing but a little more confusion where none is needed. hydnjo talk 18:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. :-) —Lifeisunfair 18:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When does it (if ever) end? WTF is wrong here. Does the agenda of the few dissenters require a lifetime of keystrokes to keep them (the dissenters) under control or will they (the dissenters) kind of die out after a while. While I continue to be impressed by you're patience in this matter, I'm also confident that you could be contributing in other more constructive ways. If I can be of any help here (short of kneecapping of course) please let me know, my patience is at a lower threshold than yours. However, I'm also committed to this project first and the community second so long as it supports the first objective. There are those, who in this matter don't seem to care about anything but supporting a pre-scripted agenda, no matter the merits. In fact they just recently show up saying Hey, I didn't know 'bout this so lets have a do-over. Clearly this is an orchestrated attempt to corrupt the process under which they (the dissenters) don't approve of the result. Cheers, hydnjo talk 03:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above, and I don't intend to continue investing time and effort in this discussion ad infinitum. There are some other articles that I'd like to work on, and I also have plenty of real-life matters to address. Hopefully, we're witnessing the debate's death throes. —Lifeisunfair 03:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK I'll be as optimistic as you are. You do have a calming effect with your strait-forwardness. With crossed fingers then, cheers and best wishes, hydnjo talk 04:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jeez! Are you confidant about the "death throes" part? I recall some time ago our Secretary of State Defense referring to a few dead-enders in Iraq. ;-) hydnjo talk 23:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, as you noted previously, I'm being optimistic (and perhaps unrealistic). If this nonsense continues beyond the immediate future, I'll try to pull myself away. (Again, that might be unrealistic, given my apparent gluttony for punishment.) —Lifeisunfair 04:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After you review the discussion at Talk:Yoghurt, what is your gut feel. I'm hard pressed to discern a strong preference (except along the usual party lines) as to which is the more appropriate Pagename. Sorry to press you into service again but what do you think? We may not be as adept as you at fixing things but we'll give it a go if you if you think this article is misnamed. Thanks in advance, hydnjo talk 03:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, your words are too kind. Indeed, I do believe that the article is misnamed. Yogurt was the original title, and appears to be the far more common spelling. Even in the UK, it seems to be catching on.

I will say, however, that the move to Yoghurt was not entirely without merit, given the Turkish etymology.

On the other hand, it's obvious that the vote was unfairly stacked by members of the UK Wikipedians' Notice Board, who blindly supported Yoghurt because they were rallied to action on the basis of national loyalty.

If a new vote begins, you can rest assured that I'll make my opinion known on the Yoghurt talk page. For now, it appears that the formal debate has ended, and I wouldn't feel comfortable stirring things up (no pun intended). —Lifeisunfair 04:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you read my most recent replies to you, dated 01:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)? You responded to only one. —Lifeisunfair 04:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I haven't read them yet as I don't usually wiki on weekends, but before I read them I want to apologize for contributing to the animosity on Talk:Petrol. I'm saying this now just incase your new replies cause me to feel, shall we say , "less apologetic" :) If so, however, I understand your motivation. That page seems to bring out the aggressive side of me because I've already had to apologize recently to another editor (Yama). I have a strong belief in the doctrine of "encyclopedia first, community second" which puts me at odds with the original author "policy" (which is actually just a suggestion). I understand it's potential benefits for the community; that being the prevention of drawn-out debates over such minimally important things like spelling, however it is my belief (and many others) that it also has the potential to compromise the quality of the encyclopedia. While the original author of Gasoline happened to choose the best name for the article, the original author of Check didn't, which you know because you voted to move it to Cheque. There wasn't any opposition to that particular move, however anybody could have easily rounded up enough die-hard pure AE supporters to keep it at the "original" page no matter how well anyone proved the appropriateness of "Cheque". ...Wow, I didn't plan to write this much and now my apology seems like a soapbox, so once more; I'm sorry for possibly promoting hostility between us.   —Teknic^T-M-C 08:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've read everything and am pleased to say that all is well. I respect your rebuttals and have replied to most of them (apologies included when necessary). Sorry about the "unfair" analogies; they were pretty juvenile.   —Teknic^T-M-C 10:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apologies accepted; please see my new replies. —Lifeisunfair 05:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the supporting words. :) The archive2 page has been deleted. --Golbez 22:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't let Yama bait me anymore. Isn't it obvious that since I don't have any drama in my own life, I fall right into it here? Just say, "Bastique, leave it alone. Just don't repond." I'm really a kind, loving, sweet and wonderful person. Yama is just the type that brings out the absolute worst in me. Thanks for letting me share. ℬastique▼^talk 02:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have incorporated this into Template:Personal. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I saw you changed the scope of this template back to what it was originally. Could you consider tagging technical articles with {{Broadcasting-stub}} rather than {{Tv-stub}}? Differential use of Tv-stub vs. Radio-stub for "all topics" vs. "programmes" is quite confusing and I'd not gotten around to moving non-program items out of Tv-stub into Broadcasting-stub yet since the change of scope. A sub-template/category could be made {{Tv-bcast-stub}} (consistent with US-bcast-stub, Canada-bcast-stub, and UK-bcast-stub} for specific Tv-related technology, but that would need to be proposed at WP:WSS/C as a "proposed stub type". For a full discussion of the thinking and actions around the whole broadcasting/station stub type area, see the "Category:Station-stubs" section of WP:WSS/C.

I'm not going to revert your reversion of scope at this time until I've had a chance to do the re-stubbing of appropriate articles from Tv-stub to Broadcasting-stub, which won't be for a while (call it an eternity in Wiki-time).

Cheers.

I'm watching this page, so you can respond here to maintain conversation continuity.

Courtland 17:09, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)