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)

It seems that you are correct. Oh rats. I hope we aren't being "watchlisted". Cheers, ;-) hydnjo talk 00:59, 20 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)

I'm new to this discussion, so please bear with me. My attention was drawn to the {{Tv-stub}} template because EdwinHJ switched "programme" to "program." I was going to revert it (because spellings should not be changed purely for the sake of conforming to a particular variety of English), when I noticed several entries that didn't fit this description. (When these have been weeded out, maybe the word "programming" should be substituted, so as to accommodate readers of both British and American English. This applies to the {{Radio-stub}} template, as well.)

I recall that the TV stub templates were extremely disorganized (with {{Tv-stub}} and the defunct {{Tvseries-stub}} used interchangeably), and I agree that major reform is in order. There are, however, some issues.

Firstly, it's my opinion that radio and television broadcasts should not be lumped together. {{Radio-bcast-stub}} and the aforementioned {{Tv-bcast-stub}} would be a logical separation.

Secondly, some of the technical stubs to which I was referring do not belong in the category of "broadcasting." Examples are:

Boob tube, Digital cable, D-VHS, High-key lighting, Jib (television), SCTE, Television director, V-chip, VHS-C, VideoPlus, W-VHS

{{Tv-tech-stub}} (perhaps as a sub-template of {{tech-stub}}) would be more suitable.

—Lifeisunfair 19:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About lumping radio and tv broadcasting together

The majority of the items under broadcasting are either stations, channels, networks, towers, or companies. My reasoning for not splitting radio and tv is that for many of these a person in a particular geographical area would be familiar with both a tv station and a radio station in the same area and I thought it best to serve the geographical axis over the transmission mode axis with respect to persons expanding stubs. Does this rationale for keeping them together seem reasonable to you? this did go by ths Stub Sorting WikiProject forum and was approved as it currently stands ... not that this stands in the way of changing it, just pointing out it wasn't a quick fix decision Courtland 00:52, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Only if the stub templates were very regionally specific (meaning that North American stations were divided by market) would that make sense to me. (Obviously, that would be highly impractical.) Even then, many people follow one broadcast medium and not the other. I, for example, know far more about television (including that of some other countries) than I do about radio.

I feel that {{Broadcasting-stub}} has been misnamed, because many elements of radio and television (such as production and some technologies) have little or no connection to broadcasting. A more suitable name would be {{Radio-tv-stub}}.

I also feel that national television networks and cable/satellite channels should not be lumped together with local broadcasters (in the United States, at least).

As I see it, we should have the following templates or ones similar to them:

  R {{Radio-tv-stub}} (Radio & television stubs)
  N    {{Radio-tv-tech-stub}} (Radio & television technologies stubs — also a sub-template of {{tech-stub}})
  N    {{Radio-bcast-stub}} (Radio broadcaster stubs)
  N       {{Canada-radio-bcast-stub}} (Canada radio broadcaster stubs)
  N       {{UK-radio-bcast-stub}} (United Kingdom radio broadcaster stubs)
             {{BBC-stub}} (British Broadcasting Corporation stubs)
  N       {{US-radio-bcast-stub}} (United States radio broadcaster stubs)
  N    {{Radio-bio-stub}} (Radio biographical stubs)      
  R    {{Radio-prog-stub}} (Radio programming stubs)
  N       {{Canada-radio-prog-stub}} (Canada radio programming stubs)
  N       {{UK-radio-prog-stub}} (United Kingdom radio programming stubs)
             {{BBC-stub}} (British Broadcasting Corporation stubs)
  N       {{US-radio-prog-stub}} (United States radio programming stubs)
  N    {{Tv-bcast-stub}} (Television broadcaster stubs)
  N       {{Canada-tv-bcast-stub}} (Canada television broadcaster stubs)
  N       {{UK-tv-bcast-stub}} (United Kingdom television broadcaster stubs)
             {{BBC-stub}} (British Broadcasting Corporation stubs)
  N       {{US-tv-bcast-local-stub}} (United States local television broadcaster stubs)
  N       {{US-tv-bcast-natl-stub}} (United States national television broadcaster stubs)
             {{PBS stub}} (Public Broadcasting Service stubs)
       {{Tv-bio-stub}} (Television biographical stubs)
  R    {{Tv-prog-stub}} (Television programming stubs)
  N       {{Canada-tv-prog-stub}} (Canada television programming stubs)
  R       {{UK-tv-prog-stub}} (United Kingdom television programming stubs)
             {{BBC-stub}} (British Broadcasting Corporation stubs)
             {{Doctorwho-stub}} (Doctor Who stubs)
  R       {{US-tv-prog-stub}} (United States television programming stubs)
             {{Buffyverse-stub}} (Buffyverse stubs)
             {{PBS stub}} (Public Broadcasting Service stubs)
             {{ST-stub}} (Star Trek stubs)
                {{ST-ep-stub}} (Star Trek episode stubs)
          {{Nickelodeon-stub}} (Nickelodeon stubs)
          {{Soap-char-stub}} (Soap opera character stubs)
  
  N = new
  R = renamed

And as a sub-template of {{Corp-stub}}:

{{Media-co-stub}} (media companies stubs — encompassing all aspects of media production and publication, which typically overlap)

{{Website-stub}} (Website stubs) should be moved elsewhere.

I've omitted redirects (for the sake of convenience) and the Hong Kong / Singapore stub templates (because I'm unsure of the extent to which these should be subdivided). Shouldn't some additional English-speaking countries (such as Australia and New Zealand) be included?

I might have gone slightly overboard with some of the subdivision that I did include, but you get the idea. This merely is a rough outline (and I'm not asserting any sort of authority). —Lifeisunfair 08:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

to continue conversation I would suggest we take this to WP:WSS/C, where I've put a link to this discussion under the heading Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#Suggested_changes_from_another_quarter. Courtland 16:32, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Understood. :-) —Lifeisunfair 16:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The text {{spoiler-other|other [[Whedonverse]] entities}} produces the following:

Template:Spoiler-other

(Mentally replace "Lifeisunfair" with the name of a Whedonverse series or character.)

—Lifeisunfair 16:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand you have strong feelings on certain issues, but please stop commenting on every single vote. When you comment on votes you agree with, you're being remarkably redundant (essentially "me too!"). When you comment on votes you disagree with, you tend to just repeat your previous comments and also tend to be abrasive and condescending. I invite you to return your concentration and energy back to the encyclopedia articles, and not get so stressed about silly templates. -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my remarks seem abrasive and condescending. From my perspective, yours have come across as arrogant and dismissive, but I'm willing to assume that my interpretations are as inaccurate as yours are.

As for redundancy, the purpose of these discussions is not to list each viewpoint once, but to establish consensus. This occurs when most members of a group convey the same or similar opinions. Agreement should be expressed, not repressed. But of course, you're welcome to interact (or not interact) to the extent that you see fit. —Lifeisunfair 18:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like you to read the above page, because I fear you really don't understand how to interact productively.

On a public page like Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, you should be polite and "argue facts, not personalities". This means that you should probably direct your comments (like I have) towards the issue, not the people. These talk pages last for a long time, and comments directed at people are of low value.

On the other hand, on a User's talk page, like this one, it is entirely appropriate to refer to "you" more often, since that is the context. In the future, if you want to discuss my behavior or attitude, please do so on my talk page. On Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, please talk to the issue -- describe your position and don't challenge me.

If you want to move the conversation from the Spoiler talk page to my talk page, do so and then reply to my original message as I'm suggesting. -- Netoholic @ 23:36, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Netoholic, you're lecturing again. It doesn't become you. Courtland 00:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

"I'd like you to read the above page,"

I read it before I made my first Wikipedia edit.

"because I fear you really don't understand how to interact productively."

Yeah, I'm the condescending one.

Since when is declaring the equivalent of "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong!" the gold standard of productivity?

"On a public page like Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, you should be polite and 'argue facts, not personalities'."

I am arguing facts. You engaged in behavior that I deem inappropriate, and I addressed this behavior. I didn't say, "I'm intelligent and Netoholic's a crazy moron!" (which is not my belief).

"This means that you should probably direct your comments (like I have) towards the issue, not the people."

1. Your idea of addressing the issue is to ignore a clear consensus, repeatedly state your minority opinion as though it's a widely accepted belief, impose this decision upon the community (while announcing your intention to revert any and all contrary edits), and dismiss all pertinent criticisms as personal attacks.

2. You dedicated your most recent Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning reply (in its entirety) to criticizing me, thereby disregarding the content of my previous reply that you claim is absent.

3. Your uncalled-for (in my assessment) editing is a relevant editorial issue. How am I supposed to discuss this without referencing the fact that you're responsible for these acts?

—Lifeisunfair 01:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. You're going way too far in your "fight". I have some ideas, but your premature vote and attitude are really interfering. I removed your vote because there is no consensus even on the format of it (see Wikipedia:Survey guidelines). -- Netoholic @ 14:32, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that this explanation is probably the clearest you've described your position. I really wish you would do something similar on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, because, having just noticed it, I can see there may be some validity to it. I still think we can get by with just two templates if we tweak a bit. Are you willing to discuss? -- Netoholic @ 14:44, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

see User:Netoholic/mentoring#Community_comments

I recommend you and the other party (Netoholic) to initiate a mediation procedure. The other party has received the same request. I hope you will be wise enough to agree to collaborate. If you agree to undergo the procedure, please state so on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. Yours sincerely, Sikon 17:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• FYI, Neto was blocked for 3RR. I also had a lengthy conversation with him and one of his mentors. I hope that it'll have effect. Radiant_>|< 23:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to so carefully update my tools page. Cheers, DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)