If I've commented on ''your'' talk page, I am already watching it for your reply.
(But I am watching nearly 500 pages. If a day or two passes and I haven't responded, you're welcome to leave a message here to call my attention to your reply.)
If you've commented on ''my'' talk page, please watch this page for my reply.
(You're welcome to crosspost the thread between the talk pages, or request that I reply on your talk page.
Unless specifically requested, I prefer to post where the thread started.)
---- It is my policy to never archive the comments posted here, but to delete them instead.

Deleted comments are always available in the page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Unfocused&action=history history].

Some users filter what they archive, removing comments that reflect poorly on their behavior.
Reading the full page history is the only way to know you're reading the entire record. I may choose to copy your comments to a subpage before deleting them, however, the subpage will not be named nor referred to as an "archive" page. ---- ==Welcome== Hi unfocused, welcome to wikipedia :) While I agree with your thinking on Votes for Deletion, you will need a bit more of an edit history for your votes to be fully counted (even if you edited anonymously before, that's the way it goes). Here's the standard message: Welcome! Hello, and Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: *Wikipedia:How to edit a page *Wikipedia:Tutorial *Wikipedia:Picture tutorial *Wikipedia:How to write a great article *Wikipedia:Naming conventions *Wikipedia:Manual of Style *If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedia:Wikipedians! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the Wikipedia:Help, add a question to the Wikipedia:village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! User:Kappa 21:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC) * What you have on your user page is an entirely understandable reaction IMO, but I should try to explain the reasons why users with few edits get labelled in that way. Wikipedia voting is supposed to determine "consensus" among wikipedians, so the idea is to ignore wikipedia:sock puppets and listen to the ''opinions'' of outsiders, but not to count their ''votes'' very highly. We can't really tell if someone's new or not, so we try and guess from the edit history. So I recommend you assume good faith on the part of that editor, although it seems like a very blunt and unwelcoming act. User:Kappa 16:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC) * (Just happened upon this discussion...) I agree with Kappa above. Sockpuppetry is a common problem on Wikipedia, especially on VfD. I've listed obvious vanity articles (of, say, a random 15-year-old kid), only to have six or seven brand-new "editors" instantly be created and vote to keep. You'll have to understand then that new users immediately look suspiscious on VfD, and editors who notice them often flag those votes so that the admin counting the votes can make up his or her own mind about sock-puppetry. :If you want to make it absolutely clear that you're not a new editor, a common technique is to list the IPs that you've previously edited under on your user page. This shouldn't be necessary, though, and I don't believe anyone is going to discard your vote because of your lack of editing history. :As a final note, listing a page for deletion just a few minutes after it was created is very common. The only way that anyone can see that a page exists is if they see it being edited while looking at Recent Changes, and so people see instantly when an article gets created and head over to check it out. It's normal, then, that most ads and vanity/junk articles are listed on VfD within a few minutes of their creation. Obviously some end up getting tagged in error, but, as it doesn't look like the Big Sky article is about to get deleted, you can see that the VfD process (sort of) works. — User:Asbestos | User talk:Asbestos 17:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ==Big Sky Ski Resort== I'm sorry you feel picked on. There are far too many nonsense, vanity and advertising articles being created hourly to try to hold the hand of the poster and make sure their feelings aren't hurt. If you want to create an article which is not listed on VfD, make sure it is about a meaningful topic and doesn't read like ad copy. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 18:30, May 5, 2005 (UTC) *Your apology to me "I'm sorry you feel picked on." is entirely unnecessary, as I didn't originate the article. However, overly aggressive use of VfD sure is hostile to the (presumably) new user that did post the article. 'Cleanup' or 'wikify' would have been far more useful, since it's obvious there should be an encyclopedia article about this major ski resort. --User:Unfocused 19:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC) == Interpellation == Here's a good link to this topic from the University of Queensland (Australia). Read it when you have a moment to think.
http://www.uq.edu.au/~enathwai/en152/interpellation.htm
--User:Unfocused 03:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC) == Pressed glass and Carnival glass == Hi Unfocused! Thanks for your contribution in Pressed glass. I am letting you know that I have created an article for Carnival glass and merged your contribution there. Cheers from User:FayssalF 15:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC) User talk:FayssalF :You are doing a good job. I appreciate the article! User:FayssalF 15:59, May 11, 2005 (UTC) ^{User talk:FayssalF} ::Good idea to put your own taken pics in there. I think the pic I added got no copyright. You can check the website I got it from; no disclaimer. But anyway, we can remove it and wait for yours. Cheers User:FayssalF 18:06, May 11, 2005 (UTC) ^{User talk:FayssalF} ==Problems With VfD== Strongly agree with your points 2-4, not sure about 1, how could it be improved? But it's not just VfD. Have a look at the early entries in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Felsen&action=history this history] for one sysop's attempts to crush a newbie (me). The closest to an apology I got was that he'd "come on a little strong". That was apparently accepted as a valid explanation for an admin vandalising a page (a substub admittedly) twice in rapid succession, within minutes of its creation and causing edit conflicts as I tried to add the content. I was in turn criticised for objecting to his behaviour (but not for my rather rude but I think justified revert comment). While I think I understand your reasons for editing anonymously, consider the benefits of signing on. Your votes on VfD and elsewhere would carry more weight. You'd be in a better position to improve the culture of Wikipedia. I think that's worth doing. Your thoughts welcome of course! Good to have you on board, in whatever capacity. User:Andrewa 17:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ==VfD: User X has Y edits== Hm, interesting point. The reason why I'm not signing those comments was to keep them as neutral and factual as possible. I wouldn't mind signing them in the future, though. But that doesn't address the real problem. I see three problems here, #It is extremely rare for a new user to make useful comments on VfD; usually, they don't go any further than 'keep this because I wrote it', sometimes with spurious insults. In other words, anons or newbies rarely have any business on VfD. Indeed, on most other vote pages, anon or n00b votes are immediately stricken out or removed entirely. #If an anon or a new user appears on multiple VfD votes, then arguably either that user got upset because of one vote and started spamming (WP:POINT), OR it is actually a secondary account (potential WP:SOCK) of an existing user. Let's face it, newbies don't just appear on VfD and don't have an instant grasp of wikiprocedure. #The main thing that upsets people is when their article is nominated for deletion. This is unfortunate and understandable, but I can't see how this can be helped. Educating newbies (with the newuser template) would help, except that people tend not to read instructions. Some rule like "articles can't be VfDed until they're a week old" 1)wouldn't help, and 2)would be instruction creep (and 3) is prone to abuse). *Yours, User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 17:27, May 12, 2005 (UTC) ==re: Welcoming newcomers == Hi, I'm not sure if you've noticed User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles but if you haven't you'll probably enjoy reading principle #2. User:Kappa 09:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC) ==Pressed glass== Hi. I removed the section because the main article text already included links to glass and carnival glass. You're certainly welcome to restore the "see also" section if there are related types of glass not mentioned. Good day. --Merovingian">User:Merovingian User talk:Merovingian Special:Contributions/Merovingian 07:14, May 17, 2005 (UTC) ==Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Christian_Liberty_Academy comments== Yes, you added yourself to the RfC correctly. This is more evidence. Frankly, I think it's best to breathe in deeply and then breathe out, and just forget about it. Alongside me, BaronLarf, and Evilphoenix, you have demonstrated that Neutrality has been rebuffing attempts to resolve differences arising from his mildly disruptive behavior. If there should be a repetition, the RfC provides a single point of reference for the future. But there probably won't be a repetition. I suspect that Neutrality will be more careful in future. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 15:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC) ==Hair-trigger VFDing== Well said. I'm not a regular in vfd circles, but I agree with pretty much all you say on your user page. One that I remember getting particularly angry at was Municipalities of Sonora -- take a look at the first few edits there. Many newcomers don't use the preview button; many must get stamped on like that within a min. or two of creating their article; how many walk away, never to come back? Cheers, User:Hajor 21:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC) ==RfC== :Per your instructions, I've been sitting back watching the RfC re: Neutrality proceed without much personal interest. I think it was a foregone conclusion that nothing significant would happen. --User:Unfocused 03:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC) :: Really? I am absolutely delighted with the result. He stopped listing stuff for deletion! Your support undoubtedly helped. I originally posted this by accident on your user page--my apologies. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 12:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC) I tried to reply to your email but your mail server doesn't accept my emails because the sender is not the same as the From header. Here's the essence of what I wanted to say in my reply: : ''I don't agree that Neutrality was breaching WP:POINT. I think he was being over-eager to accomplish what he believed was a worthwhile object, and there's room for us to disagree with one another without me impugning his motives by saying he didn't really think the articles he listed for deletion were unsuitable for Wikipedia and always would be. I actually think he really does believe this and that this belief, while I do not share it, is quite common and possibly even the majority view (in practice it does not hold sway because Votes for deletion requires a "working consensus", traditionally at least 66%, and some admins myself included always use up to 75-80%, vote for deletion to support deletion of an article).'' : ''I'm not clear on what GRider was doing so I cannot comment with authority on that subject. I believe that at one point he did make some deletion listings of good articles that he obviously did not intend to have deleted--and possibly this was why arbcom decided he was disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate his point, instead of just stating it and defending it in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia policy).'' : ''I think your statements concerning rapid relisting of VfDs that are unsuccessful may apply to one or two of the articles listed. If done egregiously and deliberately it could amount to a serious offense, but I see no evidence to support this.'' : ''I tend to disagree with David Gerard who said he thought Neutrality was breaching policy. I think he was being mildly disruptive but not at the point where I would say there was a serious problem. It was a classic dispute and I successfully resolved it in the classic way, with your help.'' --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 13:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC) *A bit of clarification... the GRider issue is a can of worms that I'm not going into (review his entire RFAr case if you're really interested) but the reason for the comparison was that, at a certain point, GRider nominated large quantities of similar articles for VfD (mainly Chicago aldermen and lesser characters from Tolkien) and gave a motivation that, according to some people, was invalid. So Neutrality also nominated many articles (on schools) and gave a motivation that, according to some, was invalid. But there the comparison ends, for one is a good contributor and ArbCom member, and the other is permanently blocked as a disruptive sockpuppet. HTH. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 10:58, May 20, 2005 (UTC) ::I reviewed the entire GRider ArbCom case in detail before I decided to certify the RfC regarding (note, not against) Neutrality. This is why I didn't get into the discussion until after some were calling for it to be closed. I won't defend GRider's actions, but some parallels there are obvious and strong. But because I don't know Neutrality as well as you and Tony Sidaway do, I could not give him the benefit of knowing how good he is or isn't in other areas. I certified the RfC based on his then current actions, primarily his refusal to reply to my message on his talk page, and the fact that like GRider, he blanked his talk page without any archiving, any response, or any change of disruptive behavior. Being new, I really had to think hard and look carefully to even find the data necessary to certify the RfC because he'd removed it. ::Note that the very first reason provided by the ArbCom for GRider's censure was NOT any formal WP policy, it was WP:POINT! Refusal to communicate and blanking of talk pages was also considered. The fact that Neutrality was part of that ArbCom decision tends to suggest that as Administrator and Arbitrator, he should have known the community's feelings on both of those types of behavior. True, Neutrality didn't imitate all of GRider's mistakes, but he did imitate enough of them that I think an RfC was fully justified. ::I agree that Neutrality is a good person here. After the RfC started, I had a look for myself at some of what he's done outside VfD. Although I think it's best to let this particular incident fade from memory, I think the obligation of Administrators and Arbitrators to hold themselves to a higher standard than the general public should be made very clear. --User:Unfocused 15:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC) *I find it laudable that you read the ArbCom case, especially given its verbosity; and I have no problem with you signing Neutrality's RFC. However one minor quibble - WP:POINT may not be considered policy, but "Do not disrupt Wikipedia" ''is'' policy. The latter tends to get one blocked almost instantly, while the former gets one dragged to RFC and the like. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 14:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC) == Paste in from Neutrality's survey; he's archiving stuff really quickly. == ==Suggest rewording the polls== An example: ''In order to be accepted as valid articles, all articles, including schools...'' I see a gap. Among some, it seems a substub is less than a stub, a stub is less than an article, which itself is less than a featured article, which is less than a perfect article. Which article level are you expecting a vote on? If you clearly and explicitly define what level of development you're referencing, you'll have a much better measure of opinions. --User:Unfocused 03:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC) :Good suggestion. I've wikilinked Wikipedia:Substub for clarity. See also the "Wikipedia:Substub#Differences between a stub and a substub" section. User:Neutrality^{User talk:Neutrality} 04:13, May 19, 2005 (UTC) ::I think this is a step in the right direction, but suggests I didn't really communicate what I was thinking well enough... I don't mean this as a rant, but to point out that I see vast differences between stubs and articles and expect very different levels of competence from each. ::Because I believe in the collaborative power of Wiki, I'm willing to accept just about anything NPOV and third party verifiable as a stub. Ideally, a stub should also have a reference. But there's a lot more in this world that I'm ignorant about than what I know about. For example, I don't know what schools each of our Congresscritters went to, but I do think that an article about each is encyclopedic, with them listed as "Notable Alumni". But to ask the Congressperson article writer to complete an entire article about each school they went to, by themselves, up to full article standards, before the schools are deemed "notable enough" is far too much to ask of any one writer. When a school stub is posted, we don't know the notable alumni, that research hasn't been done yet. When a Congressperson is added, ideally, there will already exist stubs for the schools that person went to, and adding them as "Notable Alumni" is a simple chore. ::However, I hold articles to higher standards than stubs. Articles should have at least two references, preferably three or more, and two or three paragraphs that are ''necessary'' to describe the thing or concept that is the subject of the article, unless the article is clearly a perfect article at the smaller size. Until they have that, they should all remain stubs. But you'll note that almost every school VfD nomination, for example, is a stub, but the only overwhelming "Keep" consensus votes already meet these proposed standards for articles. The only school VfD articles that get consensus "Delete" are even smaller than stubs, POV, or not verifiable. The boundaries are already drawn. ::I'm beginning to think of a compromise regarding notability (and schools), but expect to be too busy with my non-Wiki life to fully develop it, so I'll mention it here first. What if we ask the database developers to exclude all stub articles from the Special:Random Page selection algorithm, and label it "Special:Random Article" instead? (They could add Special:Random Stub and Special:Random Page on some page much less prominent than the front page.) Further, I'd suggest that the New Artcle template begin with a template by default. Stub articles could be grey links, and the template should be improved (in yet another consensus discussion) to mention that stub articles are articles that haven't been properly developed, referenced, notability proven, etc. Finally, the search engine would either have two results sections; one for articles, and another section at the bottom of the page for stubs, or it would have to clearly distinguish stubs from articles in some other obvious, impossible to ignore way. ::This way, Wikipedia would have clear levels of authoritativeness without sacrificing the collaborative nature of having thousands of stubs to grow from. This would also reduce the traffic on VfD. VfD wouldn't remove valid ideas for articles. The line between stub and article would be determined on each page's talk page by interested parties. (Maybe we'd end up with a forum similar to VfD, called "Stub Or Article", but it would certainly be more civil and deliberative than delete or keep.) In addition, people wouldn't have to worry about the perception of external viewers: our lack of authoritative voice (and reference) on stubs would be clear, yet the articles themselves would be the primary focus of the browse, search, and random navigation methods. Notability would be established only by the presence or absence of independent third party references. As long as they're NPOV, and backed by proper references, anything could be notable enough for inclusion. ::Finally, please feel free to copy or move this to other discussion pages at will. This probably isn't the best place for it, but as I mentioned, my non-Wiki life is pretty demanding right now. --User:Unfocused 16:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC) **This should only be moved to ONE other place for discussion, or it will disintegrate. Maybe you could make a sub-user page for it. User:Kappa 17:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC) *I linked from the the consensus discussion to the poll, it should be OK for the moment at least. We'll have to accept some mess with these very similar debates happening simultaneously. User:Kappa 18:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC) *I think your point is good, but the main problem with stubs is not that special:randompage can send you there. Rather, the main debate is between m:eventualism and m:immediatism - not all people are convinced that stubs, on average, exhibit substantial growth, and not all people think that a stub is a useful starting place when writing a good article (arguably, starting from scratch might serve just as well). The above two are 'truth' or 'nonsense' according to some; I guess I'll settle for 'valid opinions that others may validly disagree with'. HTH. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 10:54, May 20, 2005 (UTC) *Unfocused I want to try to persuade you to drop the "hide stubs" idea in favor of "hide sub-topics". My reasons are (1) wikipedia should be honest about what it covers, and not conceal poor coverage of important topics (2) good stubs can be informative and rewarding articles, even to random page users (3) stubs are an excellent way to draw people into the project (4) some users very rarely make articles longer than a stub, they would never support them being hidden. User:Kappa 21:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC) ==VfD cleanup== ''"VfD is being used as a cleanup tag. I don't have a problem with that per se, but the VfD notice text should be changed if this is a legitimate use."'' - true, and it seems wrong. But ironically, listing an article on VfD results in a better and swifter cleanup than listing it on cleanup. I don't think people intentionally use VfD as cleanup, but it's the result anyway. If you have an idea on fixing this, it would be appreciated, to alleviate VfD load. Yours, User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 10:54, May 20, 2005 (UTC) == FairTax == Nice work on this article :). It's good to see some of the worse POVs fixed. User:PakaranUser talk:Pakaran 23:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :Thanks for the compliment. It was a late night first pass, but now that page is on my watchlist and I'll be sure it gets cleaned and balanced even better. --User:Unfocused 23:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC) == Closed Prison Gang VfD result backwards? Yes == Hi unfocused, thanks for the heads up. I've reversed the merge in such a way that the histories of both articles are still preserved, and for all intents and purposes, STG has been merged with (and redirected to) Prison gang. --User:DeathphoenixUser_talk:Deathphoenix 02:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC) == Non-free images == For future reference, images that you suspect are non-free can be listed at Wikipedia:Possibly Unfree Images. There are clear instructions on the top of that page. Cheers. User:Burgundavia (User talk:Burgundavia) 11:54, May 21, 2005 (UTC) == Userfy == In answer to your question, how does one userfy? It's really easy... find a page, e.g. Template:ISayHello, then click on 'move'. As the new name, type User:Unfocused/ISayHello. Follow the 'move' process as stated on your screen. Ta dah! And note to myself - to update the newuser template to help them out here. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 17:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC) *Please read Wikipedia:Merge, a tutorial I just wrote on moving and merging things. This will be put in the 'welcome user' package, so I'd like your opinion on it. The 'warning' part should probably be toned down a bit (if you were to move a popular page, odds are you'll be reverted within the hour). Moving always leaves a redirect. I wasn't suggesting you started by moving the poll anyway (though I'm tempted to do it myself unless someone objects real soon now). HTH! User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 21:06, May 23, 2005 (UTC) **Okay, expanded a bit by your questions. Merging is usually noted in edit history (which is duly checked before deleting anything - if one were to replace a page with nonsense and request its deletion, it wouldn't pass). User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 21:40, May 23, 2005 (UTC) ***It's gone now from :Recentchanges. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 09:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC) == 3RR == Hi, thanks for warning me about the 3RR on my talk page. How does this work - is it more than three reversion on any pages in 24 hours, or more than 3 reversions on the same page? For example, Neutrality has made four reversions spread between two pages in the last twelve hours: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Featured&diff=0&oldid=14160086], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Featured&diff=14151009&oldid=14149323], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Schools/Deletion_principles_poll&diff=prev&oldid=14144380] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Schools/Deletion_principles_poll&diff=prev&oldid=14143359]. User:LupinUser talk:Lupin 13:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :Thanks for the clarification! User:LupinUser talk:Lupin 20:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC) == Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caulfield Grammar School == Unfocused, could you please give some reasons behind your objecting vote, so that they can be addressed accordingly? User:Harro5 23:51, May 25, 2005 (UTC) *Thanks for having a go at editing the wording of the Caulfield Grammar School article. Please feel free to tighten the prose in more sections, as this has really helped the flow of the section. User:Harro5 07:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC) ==Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Masjid e Tooba== Stop attacking the motives of VfD nominators. I am going to start deleting them. It's getting out of hand. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 19:59, May 27, 2005 (UTC) * RickK has started a discussion on this kind of thing at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Removing%20attacks%20on%20VfD%20nominators'%20motives User:Kappa 20:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC) *One Google hit is not sufficient for an article. Even if it's the first hit in a collection of only a very few hits. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 23:07, May 27, 2005 (UTC) :*There was far more than just one hit, and any of the first dozen strongly suggested notability on the Google search page without even opening the links; 70 meter high minaret, Karachi's largest dome, space for 5000 worshippers. --Un">User:Unfocusedfocused">User talk:Unfocused 02:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC) ==WP_talk:VfD== Thanks for your concern but I have restored my comment, as I think it is appropriate. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 21:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC) ==Walmart Benefits Q&A from www.walmartbenefits.com== You can just delete this if you want to. The Copyright problems page says, "Pages where the most recent edit is a copyright violation, but the previous article was not, should not be deleted. They should be reverted. The violating text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it.". User:RickKUser talk:RickK 08:53, May 29, 2005 (UTC) Deleted copyvio notice per advice above. (Thanks). --Un">User:Unfocusedfocused">User talk:Unfocused 08:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC) == WP:RPA == *I agree that WP:RPA is controversial; see Wikipedia_talk:Remove_personal_attacks for a discussion. Please check RPA's edit history for a number of people adding or removing various classification tags. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 08:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC) == Fictional universe tag? == I think you have a great idea about introducing some kind of ''Fictional universe'' tag. Would you mind writing that up as a proposal? User:Arbor 07:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Edit summaries == Hi there! You expressed some concern regarding my usage (or lack thereof) of edit summaries... so far I've been mainly using them for big changes in articles (re-categorization, merging, stuff like that). However, since people find it useful, I'd be happy to use them universally (although most will probably read something like "add a line about Mr.Burns" or "response to Kappa"). (I've never done RC before, maybe I should do that for a while to get a feeling for edit summs). Hope that helps! As a side point, I don't intend to do deletion or userblocking any time soon (unless there's a really big backlog); the main adminning thing I'd like to help with is renaming categories (CFD is pretty big these days). Yours, User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 09:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC) *Thank you for your support. We may hold different opinions at times, but I'm happy to work with you. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 18:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC) == I'm looking for a nice way to say not dead yet. == Perhaps you can help. I'm working on creating Template:Infobox Mayor, Template:Infobox Mayor/alive and Template:Infobox Mayor/dead similar to the same infoboxes for Senators, however, Mayors aren't in the public view nearly so much as Senators are. They might die without their articles being updated in quite some time. So, I'm looking for a way to phrase "not dead yet" in the infobox that doesn't sound crass or ghoulish, but lets the user know how dated the information is. It would also serve as a marker point to check the obituaries if you were to see that a Mayor's article hasn't seen him confirmed alive in ten years. Also, I'm still trying to think of a tactful way to insert that into the infobox itself. I hope you can think of a phrase to help. Please edit the infoboxes, too! The only Mayor attached to these templates so far is Jack Ford of Toledo, Ohio (from the VfD pages). Thanks! --Un">User:Unfocusedfocused">User talk:Unfocused 05:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) : I think you're right to be concerned about sounding crass or ghoulish. My instinct would be to omit the information totally because it's irrelevant. Start and end of the term of office is more relevant. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 07:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Tractors et al. == * Quite a good job with Zetor - User:Skysmith 08:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Thanks... == Thanks for the encouraging words on my talk page. It was, admittedly, a bit offputting to see what I thought of as an initial stub being immediately thrown up as VfD, but the couple of folks (you very much included) who dropped into my talk and gave more thorough explanations for their VfD were really helpful and encouraging. I think I just might like this place once I figure out some of the social cues. Interesting to see articles moved around and redirected. Again, huge thanks for the encouragement... User:Phschemguy 10:25, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) == Pukavik == Good job on further expanding Pukavik. Cheers, User:TenOfAllTrades (User_talk:TenOfAllTrades/Special:Contributions/TenOfAllTrades) 12:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Sister Theresia Unno == I must admit that I always find "retrieved dd mm yyyy" after a link rather odd; after all, it's a link, not retrieved text, and either the link works (in which case nothing is needed) or it doesn't (in which case it shouldn't be there). The footnote was a bit obscure (I missed its point, in fact), but is it really needed? Most article just place source links at the end, leaving the reader to follow them up if required. I'll not return my version, but I'd be interested to see what the MoS says on this (does it say anything, do you know?). --User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 17:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==FairTax== Check the page's talk page. Your concern on sourcing is addressed there. (I figure we should have this discussion on the page's talk page, since other users may have a similar question). User:Feco 02:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I saw on FairTax's talk page that you have degrees in Finance, Economics and Management. What college? (If you don't mind my asking.) I've got a Finance and Econ from UT-Austin. User:Feco 07:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio. It's more appropriate to say I have a double major in Finance and Management, with a minor in Economics, but when replying to some anonymous user who starts off with "you don't know much about..." the temptation to be vague was too great. ;-) ::I've also completed the real estate licensing classes for my state, studied for the NASD Series 7 license (changed my mind before the test) and I'm now working toward a CPA. I'm also considering going back to school for a law degree. Too many interests, too little time. --Un">User:UnfocusedUser talk:Unfocused 12:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::there's nothing wrong with a little strategic ambiguity when dealing with anon a**holes. Good luck with the CPA. I always found accounting to be a little too dry and boring for my liking. Ever consider getting the 7 just to have a feather in your cap? :::I'm working towards the C''F''A right now. I found myself in a dream job situation, so I have a lot of time to pursue non-work interests. I'm working on Arabic and Portuguese... at the same time, brushing up on classic books (Decline and Fall of Roman Empire, History of the Peloponnesian War). Even with the good job sitution, I find myself with far too little time. User:Feco 15:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Noticed you changed "most" to "many" on this listing for the statement. "When including payroll taxes, many people have federal tax withholdings in excess of 23%." Keep in mind that figure includes 7.5% payroll taxes and income taxes. I didn't even get into the estimated 20% imbedded taxes one pays regardless to cover the other 7.5%, corporate taxes, and compliance cost. Seems "most" would be more accurate. This tax is comparable to the highest possible tax under the Fairtax, if estimated AFT percentages are correct ;-) User:Morphh 19:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Regarding the federal tax withholdings, as you can see in the article, someone else has found and referenced data that shows that the statement I changed was wrong before I changed it. --Un">User:UnfocusedUser talk:Unfocused 00:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::In discussion on the Fairtax talk :-) User:Morphh 01:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Noticed you remove line about taxpayers choosing their own tax rates. "it isn't really true". If your talking about effective tax rate, then it is true. I can choose to purchase used goods to avoid tax or to consume moderately for a period of time. Therefore, I have choosen how much I pay in tax. With the income tax - you have no choice in the matter. You will pay or you will go to jail. User:Morphh 21:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) :With the FairTax plan, you also have no choice about your tax rate; it is always 30%. That is why I removed the statement I did, noting that it wasn't true. The correction you posted is not much more correct, as I could choose to earn less under the current system, too. But in both situations, very few will choose to pay less, as it is not in their economic or utilitarian best interest. --Un">User:UnfocusedUser talk:Unfocused 00:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Just an FYI - I had replied to several posts on the page but now they are no longer there. They were there for a day or so but they've just disappeared. I show no record of anyone deleting them and I can't even find where it says I posted them. Oh well, just thought I would let you know - perhaps you were able to read them before they vanished :-) User:Morphh 14:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Thanks for your support== Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some PI! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!>|<">meta:mergist 08:07, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) == Thanks == Hey, thanks for the welcome to FairTax. I'm studying accounting too, I always like seeing other people editing accounting-related material here. Sadly Wikipedia's coverage of accounting topics is still lacking. So if classes/profession aren't enough for you, there are a lot of articles to work on. Happy editing. User:Rhobite 05:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) == Self-induced abortion vfd. == Thank you for voting to keep the article on self-induced abortion. I promise to continue working to develop and improve this article. -- BDAbramson">User:BDAbramson User talk:BDAbramson 15:21, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Unfocused

Unfocused: a Wikipedia user who is #an semi-professional photographer. #showing symptoms of undiagnosed ADD. ==Regarding Anonymous Posting== I would estimate that I have made over a thousand minor edits, a couple dozen major edits, and contributed at least three full articles anonymously. I had been posting anonymously because I feel it is more in keeping with the nature of Wikipedia: edits stand or fall on their own merits and the quality of the sources cited, rather than on the reputation of the poster. I've decided to make most of my further contributions under my logged in account. I do not currently aspire to the role of an administrator. ==Problems With VfD== I think I've figured out why some VfD are bothering me. # The text of the VfD notice posted on the article page is ''hostile to new users''. # Rapid VfD is ''hostile to new users''. New users who put up a simple starting page are being threatened to have their work deleted just as they first see their efforts displayed on screen. # VfD is being used as a cleanup tag. I don't have a problem with that per se, but the VfD notice text should be changed if this is a legitimate use. # VfD is being used as an "delete and recreate from scratch" decree. VfD should be applied only where an article has NO PLACE in Wikipedia. If a poor article has a place in Wikipedia, it should be cleaned up, or edited down to a bare stub, rather than eliminated. Leaving a stub acknowledges the utility of the article. ==Tolerance before VfD== [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008266.html Jimbo Wales's comment re: tolerance of trivial articles on VfD] This comment is especially relevant to an encyclopedia that never runs out of paper. (I'm dropping it here as a bookmark between different workstations.)

---

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

U

UA | UB | UC | UD | UE | UF | UG | UH | UI | UJ | UK | UL | UM | UN | UO | UP | UR | US | UT | UW | UX | UY | UZ |

Words begining with Unfocused:

Unfocused
Unfocused