User talk:Korky Day

Welcome!

Hello, Korky Day, and welcome 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dandelion1 00:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV language in Clothes free movement

Hi there, I've noticed you've made a ton of edits. I do have a problem with the addition of NPOV language in your changes. You are also using terms which are not widely used, like clothist. Please review the above tips for writing articles before proceding too far ahead. Thank you. Dandelion1 01:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Signing your comments

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your interest in the Clothes free movement page. On talk pages, it's easy to automatically sign your comments: simply type four tildes (~~~~) in your edit where you want your signature to appear. Cheers! — Saxifrage ✎ 06:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I usually remember! Korky Day 00:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks.

This is still confusing, the difference between user talk and discussion. So I didn't realize you were directing that to me in particular. Anyway, thanks, whoever you are. I can see it's useless to try to add my Web publication as a link until I'm rich, famous, or hold the majority view, but I can live with that. Korky Day 00:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wreck Beach

Your recent edit to Wreck Beach is does not use appropriate language. Wikipedia is a project to document human knowledge and it explicitly not to be used to promote any particular point of view or agenda. Please familiarise yourself with our Neutral point of view policy to avoid this kind of thing. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "appropriate language" is far too vague. Korky Day 00:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I was only trying to say why it was getting reverted to a previous version, rather than be particularly specific. It takes a while to learn what kind of language is acceptable by Wikipedia's standards. Getting familiar with the underlying principles and policies helps in learning what distinctions "appropriate" and "not appropriate" turn on. Another way to feel out uncertain territory is to propose wording-changes on the Talk page of a particular article and get feedback from a few users to see what the overall consensus is. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Korky Day 07:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a meritocracy

Regarding your comment "I am well known. You use a pseudonym", I believe you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is a meritocracy and built on consensus decision-making, so your personal attributes and identity are irrelevant (except in the special case of vanity pages). Editors are respected based on their repuation and record here. Please accept the guidance of other editors—we're all assuming good faith about you, please do the same for us. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I added personal attributes as introduction, not to say I'm better or more authoritative than others. I think people were asserting I had broken rules I had not broken. They did that because they have human imperfections, not because they have bad faith. They said to read some policy, and then when I go and read it, there is nothing there which I have violated. So how about if someone thinks someone else has violated a rule, the former states which part of which rule? Korky Day 00:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding personal attributes, fair enough. Regarding the policy that was pointed out: Promoting the views of the users of Wreck Beach or Wreck Beach maintainers isn't neutral, so it goes against the neutral point of view policy. There's nothing wrong with the view that people should not use the outdoors as a big toilet, but it's not Wikipedia's job to give readers any "shoulds". — Saxifrage ✎ 07:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I was promoting anything. When I first read it, it was promoting the breakwater as a toilet. I had to counter that with the fact that that's approved by very few (sober) people. Anyway, all this discussion prompted me to improve it even more, so that's good. Korky Day 07:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I realise that you don't think so. However, it was a clear violation of the NPOV policy and you'll need to understand why eventually. Wikipedia articles, as a rule, do not direct readers to do anything, and do not judge whether one thing or an other is good or bad even by implication. This is terribly important for articles like Palestine or George W. Bush and is policy because of subjects like that. Being policy though, it applies even to rather minor and uncontroversial subjects like Wreck Beach as well. — Saxifrage ✎ 10:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I knew that, thanks. So I'll wait for more specific criticisms. Korky Day 07:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A specific criticism is and was that you told readers what to do, which is a violation of NPOV policy. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Korky Day 20:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote, "Beach regulars gently remind newscomers that all human waste deposited in this wilderness is offensive and unhealthy," with the edit summary "people polluting the water should not be encouraged"; and, "Many people at the beach object to polluting the water and land with human waste," and wrote in the edit summary, "don't pollute, bring H2O". This is what is called (in jargon) "POV-pushing", which is defined approximately as promoting one point-of-view as being "correct" or "more right" than any other or inserting language into an article that accomplishes the same. To be a successful editor you have to be even more paranoid about avoiding writing anything that reflects the point-of-view of groups to which you belong—as a "beach regular" you have to be very careful when editing Wreck Beach.

Note though that you're getting the hang of it, and your more recent edits have been significantly free of this as far as I can tell. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I guess you're right. I'd forgotten how unparanoid I was when I first joined!! Sorry for making you compile my old quotes. Korky Day 21:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That's alright! Wikipedia has a bit of a learning curve, and you dove right in. It might take a little bit for the curve to catch up with your prodigious output. You're doing well though, so just keep on this tragectory and you'll do fine. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Social nudity

Redirects are a result of Cyndiann. She is screwing things up. I have agreed with the idea to move the article to social nudity. Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves Dandelion1 01:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In Talk:Naturism (or Talk:ClothesFree ?) on 2006 April 6 I wrote a long outline of all nudity subjects which clearly shows nudism and naturism to be subsets of social nudity. To the person who is making nudism a subset of naturism, please notice that the words actually have the same denotations. De-emphasizing the word nudist is merely serving a political agenda, which I respect in some ways but is not objective. Korky Day 02:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please also add your comments on her talk page. Thanks! Dandelion1 02:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I clicked on Cyndiann and it says no such section. Korky Day 08:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

She hasn't put anything on her user page. When you get to that page, click the "discussion" tab above the blank edit box and you'll get to her Talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, my own user page is similarly full of completely confusing statements and directions. Someone should make it understandable to new people. I've read most of the intro material I'm supposed to read, but it's still not understandable since it's full of jargon. Korky Day 10:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Introduction and Tutorial pages might be of help. Also, when you have a specific question you can ask it at the Wikipedia:Help desk or on the relevant Talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but as a writer myself, it irks me to see poor writing, as that jargon is. Korky Day 02:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As a project with a technical and policy side, jargon is a necessary evil in the non-article pages. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but it can be EXPLAINED jargon. Korky Day 20:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright then. It'd be prohibitive to explain every piece of jargon every time I use one, but I can explain specific bits if you would bring them to my attention. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I had referred to my own User Page. Newcomers should be able to understand it, but every second word, almost, is jargon. Korky Day 20:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User Page, Talk Page, Discussion--it's all more confusing than necessary, but I'm sure it won't be in 5 more years. Korky Day 20:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where the confusion lies, so I can't really help. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, wait. I think I see. The layout of Wikipedia pages and the infrastructure in general is elaborate, yes. For that, the above-mentioned tutorial and introduction pages will help. So will some of the stuff written at and linked from Wikipedia:Why create an account?. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

On previewing and editing

Just a note: there's a "Show preview" button beside the "Save page" button when editing a page. Its use is recommended to avoid flooding the page history of an article with many small edits.

For the same reason, when making a significant number of changes to multiple sections of an article it is recommended to use the "edit this page" link at the top of the article, which allows the whole article to be edited at once rather than a section at a time. In combination these two practises can cut down the number of changes made to an article and make it much easier for other editors to review and collaborate on articles. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll alter my process. Korky Day 23:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your messages properly!!!!!

Korky, please review this page about how to properly sign your messages. Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages Thanks! User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I skimmed through it and couldn't see anything I've been doing wrong. Why not just tell me? I feel like I've been bashed from behind. Korky Day 19:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)'

I'm not bashing you! Just trying to help! Your signature goes at the end of comments. Please also look at the use of the colon when responding to on person's comments in a paragraph preceding your comments. See the link about Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. When you don't do this properly it creates properly following discussions. I'm trying to help you and also trying to avoid me going through and trying to correct your formatting. Thanks. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Now I see about the indents being created by colons. Thanks! However, I'm tired of people, not just you, saying things like, "You're doing it all wrong! Read procedure Such-and-such!" But Such-and-such is about 10 pages long! Even if I take an hour and read it, I still can't figure out what, in particular, I did wrong. Why can't all of you people just specify in the first place?

In conclusion, is there anything else I've been doing "wrong", besides not indenting with colons? I'm still confused about that because you are vague. Korky Day 19:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I sound that way, I do appreciate your contributions! Cheers! User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 20:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Likewise! Korky Day 21:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Get involved in social nudity naming convention debates!

Hi, I'd like to invite you to get involved in establishing consensus in discussions concerning naming conventions for social nudity topics.

Please join in this community discussion regarding the name of Portal:Clothes free.

Participate here: Portal_talk:Clothes_free#Votes

Please also join in the discussion about what to name an article dealing with social nudity. I believe the the latter term is a better term to use than naturism or nudism as it is more WP:NPOV and is in use currently. Formerly the article was titled Clothes free movement.

Participate here: Talk:Naturism#Move_to_Social_nudity

Cheers,

User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of your remarks

I have a sufficient thick skin not to be bothered by you remarks at Talk:Naturism. I just suggest that you keep those out of the discussion and if you think I have a wierd understanding of the word social, ask me what I think of it. Because my ideas are really different than that. KimvdLinde 02:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no offence meant. With hyperbole I was trying to encourage you to say what you really think of "social". I meant to be humorous, but I guess it doesn't always translate well in writing. I'll go re-word it. I try to use the names of my fellow editors, not to single them out for criticism, but to feel more like I'm talking with friends and co-workers, rather than talking to a machine. Korky Day 03:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Its ok, expressing something in writing is sometimes difficult. And getting used to how wikipedia works can be frustrating at times. KimvdLinde 03:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I just added more to that discussion at Talk:Naturism. Korky Day 04:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not show up.... KimvdLinde 04:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Should be there now. Korky Day 05:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Counterculture of the 1960s

Korky, we need an article on the Counterculture of the 1960s. Some of the edits you made to hippie would work really well there. —Viriditas | Talk 23:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer in Hippie talk.Korky Day 10:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just Wanted To Say I Missed Your Participation In The "Hippie" Article

Korky Day -- I appreciated your participation in the "Hippie" article. I think some people make a lot of arbitrary decisions and you can't let that dissuade you from participating if you think your input is what is called for. You're also about the only person who agreed with me in my argument concerning the use of the phrase "visual arts." Just wanted to say I appreciated your input, and I for one would be happy to hear more from you as concerns the "Hippie" article. We can't all agree, all the time, obviously. I just wanted to say those few things. Bus stop 19:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I answered in Hippie (Talk). Korky Day 00:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Enjoyed today's edits to the "Hippie" article. Apostle12 08:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RAS syndrome

See what I said here regarding the list of examples. In short the article does not need more than a few examples to explain what RAS is. superapathyman 04:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please leave your comments on the article's talkpage. The comment is just a reminder. superapathyman 04:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, superapathyman. I have commented there as you suggested. Korky Day 05:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Separators in numbers

For the number articles we don't use separators because professional mathematicians don't use separators either. Take for example, the bottom of the third page of this reference: Brenton, Lawrence and Vasiliu, Ana (2002). "Znam's problem". Mathematics Magazine 75: 3 – 11. They write fifteen thousand six hundred eighty-seven as "15687," not "15.687" nor "15,687" and certainly not as "$15\cdot 687$," which could be misunderstood as fifteen times six hundred eighty-seven. Now it would be ideal for 1729 to be about the number, in my opinion; but I have to acknowledge that this is a general knowledge encyclopedia and the year 1729 AD gets higher priority for the shorter URL. So the article about the number gets saddled with the "_(number)". If the SI middle dot was easy to type, it would shorten the URL for numbers like 1138 and 1729, but what about 47, 666, 720?

I would like to thank you for bringing this up, though, it's good to re-examine details like this every now and then. Anton Mravcek 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent deletion edit to the List of redundant expressions

Please don't delete markup from articles simply because you don't understand it or don't agree with it. That markup convention (aside from being over 30 years old in general) has been used in that article for over a year. If you have a problem with it, seek consensus on the talk page, please. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nicotine users and former users, List of

An editor has nominated Nicotine users and former users, List of, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous smokers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

re List of famous smokers

Well, I don't really care about the article that much. All I know is that it was up for deletion and about half of the commentors wanted to delete it and the other half argued to keep it, but only if was majorly edited. I mean, here are remarks taken from four of the five Keep commentors:

• "The list does need major clean-up..."
• "...keep it (with some serious cleanup)...
• "Prune, if need be; and revert it if it becomes unwieldy..."
• "Keep and prune..."

After all, not only did many many people smoke in earlier times, but still today many people smoke for a while in their youth. It seems that - and that general consensus was - the list needs to be severely limited in some way, else it grow to literally scores of thousands of entries. What I was hearing is that the list needs to be limited to those who are genuinely famous AND/OR those whose public image is associated with smoking; different editors appear to believe that it should be one, or the other, or both. But there is no way that simply being famous enough to have a Wikipedia article, and being a current or former smoker, is sufficient for inclusion, or that very many editors think that it is.

So I pruned the list to follow my reading of consensus as best I could. Certainly I may have made errors, you are completely welcome to undo them; there isn't really a "prune" outcome for a close, so you and other editors are free and indeed encouraged to remake the list as seems fit.

Now, as far as reverting to a previous version but still keeping good edits that occurred after the pruning... Ah, I guess that there is no easy way to do this... Unless there's some trick that I don't know about, I guess that you would have to do it by hand, either by copying the good edits into a text file, reverting to the pre-Herostratus version, and pasting the later edits in by hand; or looking at my diff and copying the deleted material into the current version, one entry at a time. Herostratus 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your polite, prompt, and considered reply. However, none of your quotes of editors suggest a wholesale cutback of qualified names. "Major clean-up" doesn't mean that. Clean-up can mean citations, grammar, alphabetical order, etc. You argue that the article shouldn't have too many names. You say, "that general consensus was - the list needs to be severely limited in some way, else it grow to literally scores of thousands of entries". But none of your quotes say that. Only you say that. And even if half the editors DID say that, there would still be no concensus for that action. The rule at Wikipedia, as far as I can tell, is that if there is no agreement to reduce the information in a long article, the article can be split into 2 or more articles. Also, you've thrown in some red herrings (people smoking as teens before they became famous). Mainly you haven't addressed the main problem that you deleted many very famous people who have been well-documented as frequently smoking for the media cameras, many proudly posing with smokes, not just being caught unawares. Take David Letterman, for instance. He's well-known for smoking cigars on television. I've seen him do so on his show which is very popular in the USA and here in Canada. You cut him out.

Since you say there's no easy way to revert now, why should I be stuck with what might turn out to be a couple of hours work putting back dozens of names (or putting back the improvements since)? Shouldn't you do it, since you did the careless, unauthorised damage? Or, since you are an administrator, get one of your people to programme a selective revert process like I want. We need that process, anyway. Might as well do it now, eh? Korky Day 15:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, hmm, I dunno. I don't really agree that my edits were wrong or unauthorized, so I don't really want to reverse them, though you are welcome to, I don't think it would really be all that much work. Herostratus 00:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I went to a lot of trouble to make my case and you reply completely unconvincingly. What a way to get out of doing the work! Korky Day 08:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the deletes. I explained more why on the discussion page for that article. You wrote, "I don't think it would really be all that much work". It took me over 2 hours, including these notes to you. To heal your conscience, you may make a donation in my name to AIRSPACE Non-smokers Rights Association, Burnaby, BC, Canada, for my work at $20 per hour x 2 = US$40 (I'm a professional editor). On my own time I'm improving it in authorized, allowed ways. Korky Day 21:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me a freaken break. You did that work on your own dime. The consensus at the AfD was that the article sucked. I improved it per general consensus. You changed it back, which is your pregrogative, but without consensus, which is not really your prerogative. For the rest, see that talk page of the article. Herostratus 21:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold your temper. The consensus was to improve the article in various ways. Only one person said "prune". One said to prune "if need be". That's one for certain and one conditional: not a consensus. I'm going to go back now and do more re-writing, as per the consensus. I hope you'll like my work. Korky Day 22:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a bunch of editors who thought the article too embarrassing for the financial health of the tobacco companies have deleted the entire article when I wasn't looking. I'm feeling like quitting Wikipedia until the deleting mania throughout the encyclopedia is stopped. See criticism in Wikitruth. Are there more experienced editors of you who agree that such deletions are insane and must be stopped somehow? There must be a fundamental change in how Wikipedia operates. An interim fix would be to take from the secret archives all deleted articles and give them to Wikitruth. Now I can't even see the great article I spent so many hours improving. The same problem exists with parts of articles being deleted, but at least they're available in the article's "history". Korky Day 17:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Continued in "Re: Smokers" section below. Korky Day 11:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: YouTube debate

Actually, I didn't put that particular information in there. Before I edited the page, it said "Individuals will be able to send their videos via YouTube and their questions through Google and CNN.com." That sentence seemed unclear to me so I reworded it a bit, but I didn't check any sources to make sure it was true. If the part about non-video question submission is not verifiable, feel free to remove it. Etphonehome 22:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In case you're interested

After Talk:Texas Straw Poll, I realized the entire straw poll concept is hardly covered on Wikipedia and nominated it for the improvement drive. Figured I'd let you know. Narco 12:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Narco. I thought the straw poll article was pretty good, but expanding it certainly couldn't hurt. I'll look at it again. Korky Day 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(Re: P.S. Did you choose that handle because you're an undercover narcotics police officer?) I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you. ;-) BTW no need to respond in two places, I started the convo here so I keep an eye on it. Narco 01:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I changed the article quite a lot. Proud of it. Thanks for the suggestion. Korky Day 03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:United States presidential election, 2008 navigation

I'd like to compliment you on your re-organization of the candidate listings on the presidential election 2008 template. It looks so much better organized and a lot less confusing than it did before. Thanks for taking the initiative. Well done!--JayJasper 21:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jay! I'd like to improve it more (and many other articles), but USAmerican Wikipedians resist too much when I tell them to treat all parties and candidates equally. So I'll be happy for now with incremental improvements. Korky Day 06:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: LDS modesty

I am an endowed member, yeah. We're always encouraged to leave them on as much as possible, day and night, but there are no specific injunctions as to exactly when it's acceptable to remove them. In fact, I was specifically told in the temple that no one is allowed to give me more detailed instructions than these; figuring out any specific situation is between the wearer and God. So yeah, presumably everyone takes them off for showers; some people take them off to exercise; some people occasionally fall asleep naked with their spouses. As long as they're worn the majority of the time and in all normal situations, the rest is a completely personal choice. --Masamage ♫ 05:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I've heard of showering with them on. Very definitely they wore them during marital sex in the 1960s. That's what the slots and flaps are for, we were told. You start off, "as much as possible, day and night" and end up only "the majority of the time". That's quite a stretch, from 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 55 seconds (5 seconds to change them daily) to only 12 hours and 1 second. I think the church and its members are wary of ridicule so they are cagey answering this sort of question. But I don't want to offend you because I have a little favour to ask later. Korky Day 05:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no longer slots or flaps in the garments (except for the men, as in other forms of male underwear). And please don't overinterpet me; I meant the exact same thing by each of those statements, but my phrasing in the first one was lazy. That's not a literal "as much as possible"--part of the instruction is that it's okay to remove them for some things, and what that constitutes is mostly up to the person. --Masamage ♫ 05:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The garments started in the 1800s to enforce "modesty", a major goal in any patriarchy, like the veil of Moslems. For all my life, the church has been retreating in the face of member pressure and public pressure. But they don't want to admit that the Lord's standards are being changed--because you want to be able to claim still that you had it right all along, that truth is truth and has always been. If you weren't opportunists and hypocrites you'd still wear swimsuits that cover your upper arms and thighs; you'd still have the slots so you could have marital sex while remaining "modestly" covered. Then you'd be wearing the temple garments as much as possible, the church's alleged position still. Showering, too, so the sight of yourself wouldn't inflame your lust. I could see all that hypocrisy in the 1960s, which contributed to me losing my faith and becoming a pro-feminist atheist. Now I'm consistent, not trying to weasel around the issue. Maybe your god will rescue you with a revelation that you should all be nudists like I am. Korky Day 05:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely, as I get cold extremely easily. Best of luck to you. --Masamage ♫ 06:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nudism in law of chastity

Do you have a source for nudism being contrary to the law of chastity as taught by LDS Church leaders? Otherwise, the sentence you added that so stated will be deleted. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 07:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a source because I thought it was common knowledge the church has been harassing the nudist movement, either for that reason or some others. I guess you can delete it while I'm looking if you really doubt it. Korky Day 02:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Harassing the nudist movement"? Lol—do let me know when you find a source. That sounds like an entertaining read! Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But then again, any statement with both "harass" and "nudist" is inherently hilarious ... If we could only throw in a "pantaloons", we'd be covered (so to speak). Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 05:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Referance is a noun and a verb

In the 12-hour clock article you were making editing on 9/11/2007 saying that reference is not a verb. According to dictionaries I have checked reference is both a noun and a verb. Zginder 19:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to use your time looking it up. Those must be new dictionaries caving in to the onslaught of so many people using the ugly (former) error. Well, at least I can console myself that the old way isn't considered wrong--YET!

I don't might using nouns as verbs if there is no better way to say something, but in this case there is. Saying "referred to" is both shorter and more elegant. Thanks for your interest and courtesy. Korky Day 20:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Smokers

Continued from 7 sections above.

The best way to go about getting an article undeleted is through the official channel, which is Deletion Review; if I just restored it myself without this kind of public discussion I would probably get in trouble. If that doesn't work, though, I can certainly move the entire article history into a subpage in your userspace and undelete it for you there. I could also do that right now if you want to skip the DR altogether. I can also keep an eye on such a review and make sure people are using relevant arguments. Remember, though, that almost the worst thing you can do is cast aspersions on people's motivation for disagreeing with you. Whether or not you're right, people are sort of biased against that argument because it's so hard to prove and so easy to misuse. So I'd avoid it. Anyway, let me know which course you'd like to pursue. --Masamage ♫ 20:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's somewhat like Parliament, in which members are not allowed to call the other parliamentarians "liars", "crooks", and "genocidal maniacs", even when they are! How quaint! And how kind of you to clue me in and to offer to help further. And you advise me so delicately!

I've been reading criticism of how Wikipedia is set up. I think I agree that these delete and undelete wars (of articles and of revisions of articles) are wasting everyone's time and emotions. There must be a better way! Firstly, deleting a whole article should be much harder, unless it's just vandalism or commercialism, etc. And the longer an article has been accepted, the harder deletion should be. For instance, after 3 months and 50 revisions, as in the case at hand, maybe require 100 people to vote for deletion, and at least by a 2/3 vote. And require that everyone who has revised it is informed of the vote in time to vote themselves. And require that, if deleted, an article must be available for publication by other Web sites, such as the Wikipedia Knowledge Dump (wikidumper.com) and Yahoo Answers. In the case of this article on smokers, I just discovered that those 2 do indeed have it (the 1st has part--and the latter seems to have all of it). The latter even mentions that it is from Wikipedia, but does not mentioned that Wikipedia has deleted it. I found those pretty easily with Google, so I am thinking of just waiting a few years until Wikipedia grows up. Maybe in your position you could get changes in the process similar to these ideas, if you agree. Korky Day 12:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the probably with majority votes is that it's extremely, extremely easy to get numbers; all you have to do is go to a web forum and ask all your friends to register accounts and come to the vote. Bam, 100 people on your side. If that started happening we would have to make rules about who was worthy of participating in the vote, and setting up requirements to participate, which would turn the whole thing back into an elitist jumble. That's why we try to run by consensus, even though it's really hard to get right. No, this system is not perfect. People are making adjustments and holding debates and trying to improve the way things run every day, so you're right, it'll probably be better in a few years. If you're interested in those discussions you should definitely join in; I don't know where they all are, but people at the Village Pump could help. Anyway, if you want me to move the article to your userspace and undelete it, let me know. --Masamage ♫ 17:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what my userspace is, but I guess that will work or e-mail it to korkyday a t - s i g n yahoo.com . Could you include the same for "List of Songs about Nudity"? That is, the last version and MY last version. Thanks! Korky Day 23:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Adygea

Thanks. I replied there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Revolution

Ron Paul Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Paul_Revolution#Ron_Paul_Revolution

If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page. Thank you.--Duchamps comb (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Copied help desk reply

This Google search finds two old help desk pages with posts from you: [1] and [2]. In the second you also asked how to find old posts from you. Whenever somebody other than you edits your talk page, you should automatically get a new messages notice. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you're a great help! I copied those archives here so I don't lose them again. That Google procedure is great, too; I hadn't known about it. Korky Day (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

From the Help pages archives so I don't lose it

The basic Wikipedia tabs are insufficient

1. How can I find a list of questions I've asked the Help desk (and other places for editors)? I can't remember the dates and pages. The answers aren't on "My Talk" page (sic, should be "Your talk"). "My Watchlist" (sic, should be "Your watch list") is not useful for that because it's much too full of other stuff: I can't find the needle in the haystack.

2. We need a REAL "My Watchlist" / "Your watch list"! If I click on that (alleged) tab, I see instead a huge list of all the changes anyone ever made to all the articles in my watchlist, not the list of just the articles themselves (listing each article once!). "My Watchlist" as it is now is much too long to be of much use. Instead it should list the articles (once each) and then let you click on any one to see the changes made to that one article in reverse chronological order. What you get now with "My Watchlist" tab should be under a tab called "Everyone's changes to your watch list articles".

3. When I wasn't looking, a posse deleted one of my favourite articles, "List of Famous Smokers". I spent many hours editing it trying to please the complainers. It was saved from deletion once. Then later I see it's been deleted. I had no notice, no chance to vote. If the people who (a) had it on their watchlist. (b) had edited it. (c) had commented on it. (d) had voted on it any time it was considered for deletion. had been notified in time to vote, it might very well have won the vote. That's why I say it was a posse. A bunch of people (maybe biased tobacco company executives, who knows?) stealthily ambushed it. Because I happened not to notice, I get disenfranchised. Is that a good way to run an encyclopedia?

4. How do I start a campaign to bring back an article? I need to notify those in categories 3.(a-d).

Please answer with a note in "My Talk" page. Korky Day 23:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There sure was a chance for you to discuss it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous smokers (2nd nomination).

As far as the watchlist goes, go to your preferences and check the box that says "Expand watchlist to show all applicable changes". --YbborTalk 23:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

When I click on My Watch List, it shows the LAST change to each article in my watch list. It does not list every change, causing articles to list multiple times. As for finding your posts, click on My Contributions. It is rather easy to see what changes you've made. As for notice of deletion, it is not the responsibility of the world to notify you about the article because you do not own the article. If it is important to you, add it to your watch list and check your watch list regularly. -- Kainaw(what?) 00:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You can search the Help desk archives with Google. For example, search the Help desk for: Korky Day. (I listed some useful search links here: User:Teratornis#Useful searches.) Another way to see where you have posted is to look on your contributions: Special:Contributions/Korky Day. See: Help:User contributions. If you don't like the way Wikipedia looks, you can try a different skin or try designing your own. If you want to improve the way Wikipedia functions, see mw:How to become a MediaWiki hacker. Wikipedia is almost entirely the product of volunteers, so the chance is good that you can contribute significantly if you have the skills and you want to work hard for free. --Teratornis 16:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

More from Help page archives

Is anyone creating short-cuts to check if one's contributions have been edited?

I can't be the only one who finds it too time-consuming to see if my contributions have been changed or deleted. Or is there an easier way? I have over 100 on my watchlist, I think. To check each one I must click on it in my watchlist, then search through the history to find my last contribution (which is often 3 or 4 pages earlier!), then compare that edit of mine with the current version, which I can't figure how to do when the versions are on different pages in the history. All that takes over 10 minutes per article, or over 1000 minutes to check them all--over 16 hours. So I check 2 or 3 articles and then give up. Thanks! Can you answer on my talk page? That's because I'm unlikely to be able to find this question again with your answer. 70.67.80.91 03:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? IP editors have watchlists now? --tjstrf talk 03:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!! Sorry, I thought I was logged in. That's my question above. Often I log in but after a while I'm automatically logged out but I'm not notified. I think I signed with 4 ~. Korky Day 05:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that this is actually someone with an account who is just not logged in right now (in which case posting on the IP's talk page wouldn't work since there's no way to tell if the editor will see it), here's something you can try: go to your Special:Contributions page, and look for an edit you made. If it has (top) after it, no-one's edited the article since then. If it doesn't, then it's not too hard to compare the page as you left it and as it is now by going to the history of the page, locating your edit in the list, and clicking the (cur) link next to it. (Incidentally, the (last) link will compare the chosen edit to the previous version of the page.) Confusing Manifestation 03:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!! You're right, (cur) does sometimes work, but I'd still have to go to the history page each time and look for each contribution of mine--one by one. That's what takes so long. I can't click on (cur) on my contributions page to see if it's been changed. Even if (cur) in the history saved a couple of minutes per article, it would still take 8 minutes per article, or over 13 hours altogether. It would help a little if I could find a list of articles on my watchlist (listed only once each), but I don't know how to find that. All I can find is a huge huge list of changes made to articles on my watchlist.Korky Day 05:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of all the pages on your watchlist is linked up the top, where it says "You have 98 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages); you can display and edit the complete list." <- the link in "display and edit the complete list" is to Special:Watchlist/edit, where you can find links to the articles, their talk pages, and their history pages. Still not the 100% perfect solution for what you want, but perhaps a start. Confusing Manifestation 06:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that works! Thanks, ConMan. I'll await further improvements. Don't have the skill to make them myself (not yet, anyway). Korky Day (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

3rd excerpt from the Help Pages

Can't find my own questions; codes in different colour, please.

I've asked questions here before and now I can't find them to know if they've been answered or not. Can I be notified one way or the other--and be given links? Can you notify me in my Talk page and with a New Message notice?

My new question is can you please change the way all the edit boxes are displayed? When I am editing an article it's really hard because the text and the codes are all in the same colour and intensity. Elsewhere in the 1990s I used to see the text in light face and the codes in bold, or something like that. Even better might be a colour difference. Thanks! Korky Day (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This Google search finds two old help desk pages with posts from you: [3] and [4]. In the second you also asked how to find old posts from you. Whenever somebody other than you edits your talk page, you should automatically get a new messages notice. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment about deletion debates

You mentioned that you'd wished deletion "votes" were counted automatically, as opposed to subjectively. You might check out WP:AFD --- AfD debates are actually not votes. The closing admin has discretion to "read" consensus and judge the validity of the arguments themselves; the number of "keep" versus "delete" votes is a factor, but not the only one.

Since this confers a fair amount of power on the closing admin, as you've basically noted, there's a separate process for oversight on AfD votes: Deletion Review (DRV). One of the "keep" votes for "Ron Paul Revolution" actually nominated the AfD debate for DRV; you can read the ensuing discussion here.

You seem genuinely disappointed that the "Revolution" article was deleted. I don't blame you. I'd like to point out that nothing prevents you from breaking the "grassroots Paul campaigning" content out into another article. The WP:SIZE argument has merit. My objection to the "Revolution" article (one of many, and not the most effective) was that it was titled "Ron Paul Revolution" (as opposed to, say, "Grassroots support of Ron Paul in 2008), and seemed like an attempt to create an article where it would be hard to report negative events or criticism of the campaign.

Sorry this process was so frustrating for you. I certainly didn't help, but I'm glad you're taking the time to work with everyone on Wikipedia.

--- tqbf 01:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

REFORMING THE DELETE PROCESS. You're very kind, tqbf, to write that and to commiserate with me. I agree with almost everything you wrote. Furthermore, this RPR [Ron Paul Revolution] deletion is far from the worst abuse of power and reason that I have seen in Wikipedia. The idea of consensus, as pioneered by the early Green Party in the 1980s and others, is that no substantial group of sincere, reasonable (or even quasi-reasonable) people will be over-ridden if it is at all possible to avoid it. In a small group of people, that faction could even be a single person. Consensus has many pro's and con's. But for deletion in Wikipedia I think it could work. Since including an article which some think should not be included is at worst a minor annoyance, we should always put the onus on the deleters to persuade the preservers. Our process is far from that ideal. Yes, I know the "votes" aren't votes, but I want to see the administrator actually tally their "reading" of our non-votes, as they sometimes do, but they didn't in this case because they didn't have to. If the administrator has read my Keep as a Delete, both of those interpretations should be shown on the tally. Either we should demote a great many of our administrators or we should put in automatic counters which force them to show 80% or 90% or more support after notifying everyone who's edited the article or has it on their watchlist or has otherwise shown an interest. The vote seemed very far under 80% on RPR, though I didn't see any tally anywhere. Of course, if I own, for instance, one little inconsequential book store and I get all my employees and customers to insist that it have an article, then of course the administrator should delete it. But that was far from the case with RPR, though some made similar wild charges. Yes, I know that I can appeal or complain about a particular administrator, but I think that the problem is much larger than that. That's shown when Yahoo Answers eagerly snapped up our stealthily deleted article "List of Famous Smokers", for instance. I could fight to get it back, but that's a horrible waste of everyone's time. Also, the deleted article should be e-mailed to those who want it, both in its final big version and the last version which that editor made. Do you automatically get notified that I've answered you here? Korky Day (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Any article I edit gets automatically added to my watchlist; that's a feature you can add in your Special:Preferences. So yeah, I can see you respond.
• Remember that I'm a firm and raucous "delete" on Ron Paul Revolution, so I'm probably going to disagree with you that what happened on that AfD was an abuse; I think the closing admin read the debate properly. But I thought you might want to know about the WP:DRV process; people regularly disagree with AfD closes, and WP does have a mechanism for handling that.
• You can always ask the closing admin for a copy of a deleted article, or a snapshot of the article's history. In this case, User:Buspar obtained a copy which is now hosted on his talk page. --- tqbf 22:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I use my watchlist, but it's not set up very well, so it's easy to miss if someone's answered me.

I'm not overly keen to save this particular article. I'm more concerned about the process.

I have asked for copies like that, but haven't got them. I should just be able to click to get them, not depend on someone getting around to spending their time doing it.

Do you want to improve the process thus? I'm too new to this stuff. Most important is a mandatory proper tally and a high minimum approval. Korky Day (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Bannished Words List

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Bannished Words List, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Caught this when I replied to your last message --- obviously doesn't merit deletion. I cleaned it up for you a bit, if you want to check out the edit history of the page to see what a standard WP article looks like (also check out WP:MOS). --- tqbf 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, tqbf. I knew when I made it that it needed more. But I don't think I should hold back on creation until I have the time to do more, since others (such as you) might be quite happy to help. Korky Day (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

I've been working on the stub for Broadcast Journalism. I'd appreciate any feedback you have as well as any suggestions for further expansion on the article. Tmac9986 (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Yahoo! appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.--Startstop123 (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of service without notice Yahoo! e-mail reduces service without advising its subscribers. For instance, incoming messages no longer have an icon showing that the sender is listed in the customer's "Contacts" list. More recently, the company disabled the feature allowing the customer to revise a group list on a one-time basis in one of the address boxes of a particular message. At the same time, they started automatically deleting drafts when they were sent.

This appears to be an unsourced personal opinion, which is not encyclopedic information. If you have a source for it, add it back in with an appropriate and credible reference. Otherwise it appears to be your opinion of the Yahoo mail service. I use Yahoo mail and have not experienced any of these issues. Thanks.--Startstop123 (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I read over your entry again and I see what you are saying, but the way it is written initially made me feel that it was POV criticism. I apologize, but I still do not see a source that indicates this change. Also, "Removal of service without notice Yahoo! e-mail reduces service without advising its subscribers," seems a bit harsh. Perhaps you could rename the section to e-mail changes or something like that. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--Startstop123 (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, startstop123. I'm not sure why I need a source. Do I need a source to say the sun rose today? Millions of Yahoo users can see the change and anyone can go to Yahoo and see it is how I say it is. Do I have to Google and find a source? Korky Day (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Banished Words List

I have nominated Banished Words List, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banished Words List. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Deletionists causing world shame to Wikipedia

• Another surprise deletion of one of my articles, "Banished Words List" (as above). It was subsequently deleted. This is way out of hand. There is no justification. All the charges against the article are false, trivial, or irrelevant. Why do I say "surprise"? Because unlike some of you, I do not make Wikipedia the centre of my life. So, since I didn't log in for a few weeks, you deletionists took the opportunity to delete a good article of mine. The whole Wikipedia system is shameful for letting you do that. One of you could've e-mailed me. (I have posted my e-address korkyday (at) yahoo.com ) But no one had the courage. I'm really disgusted--again. Maybe you suspected that I'd successfully defend it if I'd known what you were doing. So basically, I'm going to hold back on adding articles until the Wikipedia deletion system is reformed to stop encouraging you to destroy the good work of others. I've been complaining about this for years, and I'm one of many to do so. This is really the worst part of Wikipedia, and really degrading our world reputation. I can't even get back my article officially without begging some administrator. Totally insane. You deletionists should be really ashamed of yourselves. You've wormed your way into the Wikipedia governing structure and someday you'll be stopped, either from within, or because of the public shaming the Wikipedia top brass. Why should I waste my time defending my articles when you deletionists have the advantage under the existing rules? Korky Day (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to paste in the deleted article here and you tell me what's so bad about it. Nothing that can't be fixed!! So fix it, don't delete it. Here it is, though I'm sorry it looks bad without all the original paragraphing:

Banished Words List On each January 1, a crew at Lake Superior State University releases their light-hearted list of words and phrases they would banish if they could, with explanations. The 2008 list is the 33rd annual, the long name of which is "List of Words Banished from the Queen's English for Misuse, Overuse and General Uselessness". It includes clichés, redundancies, illogic, etc.Included are the winning submissions from the public, from among thousands. Current and past lists are all in their Web publication, as below. Other similar lists exist, but this one gets the most attention every New Year's Day in the world's Anglophone media.Contents: 1. Summary of the 2008 list 2. See also 3. External links

1. Summary of the 2008 list perfect storm webinar waterboarding organic wordsmith / wordsmithing author / authored post 9/11 surge give back 'BLANK' is the new "BLANK' or 'X' is the new 'Y' Black Friday back in the day random sweet decimate emotional pop ('makes it POP') It is what it is. under the bus 2. See also Cliché Slang Fad 3. External links Lake Superior State University's Banished Words Category: Articles for deletion, All pages needing to be wikified, Wikify from January 2008, Articles with invalid date parameter in template, Articles needing additional references from January 2008

End of pasted-in salvaged article. Korky Day (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Radio

The call sign takes precedence over the organizational name in the "name" field of an infobox, for three reasons:

1. We need to be consistent across all radio stations.
2. The "name" field is the only place in an infobox where the call sign can possibly be inserted, while there are two other places in the infobox where the name "Vancouver Co-operative Radio" can be.
3. The call sign is legally the official name of any radio transmitter. It may not be the name of the organization that owns and operates a station, or the name that a station prefers to use on the air, but it is still a station's primary name under the law. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And just to clarify, nobody's saying that the name "Vancouver Co-op Radio" can't be in the article at all. We just can't use it instead of the call sign in places (the article title, the top of an infobox, etc.) where the call sign is what's expected under Wikipedia policy. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! On the station's legal documents the station (not separate from the "owner") is called Vancouver Co-operative Radio, not CFRO. But I guess I can live with this. Korky Day (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to suggest that Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations consider revising the infobox to make the name more prominent than it currently is, because you're not the first person ever to raise such a concern. But it would need a consensus from them, so I can't guarantee that it's a change that would take place right away. And just so we're clear, what I'm talking about with the legal name stuff is the way a station is licensed by the CRTC — the way they identify things in the license documents I can see on their site is that Vancouver Co-operative Radio is the licensee of a radio programming undertaking called CFRO-FM. I can understand how you'd see things differently, since the organization and the station aren't really separate entities, but as far as the CRTC is concerned the station is called CFRO and Vancouver Co-operative Radio is the organization that owns it. It kind of sounds like splitting hairs, I know, but I'll see if I can convince the Radio Project to revise the infobox a bit to make things less ambiguous. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Bearcat has just answered why I reverted your edits. --Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If that is true about the documents, I haven't seen them. I thought I saw documents otherwise. Anyway, I'll leave it. However, Emarsee, you just reverted something else in there of mine without explanation. Please remember to put in an explanation every time you edit anything, even if you type in simply "comma". Anyway, your most recent edit is wrong because the station goes by 2 names (the term branding doesn't really fit), so they should both be in the infobox: Our full name and our nickname. It is station policy not to promote the call letters as our name. Korky Day (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Radio station infobox about revising the template. One option that's on the table is to format it in such a way that allows both the call sign and the common name to appear at the head of the infobox, but the discussion is ongoing and there hasn't been a decision yet. Feel free to keep an eye on the discussion and to participate if you have any input you'd like to add. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look there. Korky Day (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Text sections in articles about Constitutional amendments

Text sections in articles about Constitutional amendments, whether ratified or rejected by the States, are called "Text". Remember that any section in an article is about the subject of that article. In this case, that means "Text" must be about the words (possibly numbers also) that make up the amendment. Therefore, it's redundant to say "of the amendment". For examples, see this and this. Just like in "Background" and "History" sections, it isn't necessary to say "of" what it's referring. Clarity is good, but don't cross the line into redundancy or wordiness.

Your welcome, regarding the "State constitutions" subsection. Added that material was a good idea on your part. SMP0328. (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree about History and Background, but not Text. The difference is that almost the whole article is text, too, as is the whole encyclopedia. So it's not redundant to add "of the amendment". If that's not clear, think if you used, instead of the word "Text", the word "Words", which is a synonym. Would it then be clear to everyone that the "Words" mentioned were the "Words" of the amendment and not some other words in the article or in the legal process to amend? No. How about another synonym for "Text", which is "Words and punctuation and numbers"? No. Still ambiguous even if it were not clumsy. Korky Day (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Political correctness

I disagree with your assessment.

Compare the lede sentance of some recent featured articles:

• The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a collection of annals in Old English narrating the history of the Anglo-Saxons.

• Tulip mania was a period in the Dutch Golden Age during which contract prices for bulbs of the newly-introduced tulip reached extraordinarily high levels and then suddenly collapsed.

• Mom and Dad is a feature-length 1945 film directed by William Beaudine, and largely produced by the exploitation filmmaker and presenter Kroger Babb.

• Jena Six was the name given to a group of six black teenagers charged with the beating of Justin Barker, a white student at Jena High School in Jena, Louisiana, United States, on December 4, 2006.

All of them are delcarative sentances that identify the particulars of the subject. From WP:LEDE: "Opening sentence: The article should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence that provides the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to two questions: 'What (or who) is it?' and 'Why is this subject notable?'." Your suggested lede sentance gives absolutely no information/particulars about the topic other than your unsourced claim that it "is a term with contradictory and controversial uses".

If you disagree with the definition that currently exists in the lede, please provide a reliable source that gives a definition that is more widely accepted. Providing the particulars/definition in the lede sentance does not make the article "wictionary" when there are 3 more paragraphs in the rest of the lede which give context, as well as a full article subsequent to the lede. If you feel that the lede paragraphs need more / other context, feel free to add sourced content there as well. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your definition. Much too narrow. The article taken as a whole disagrees with you, too. I'll work on a compromise. Please bear with me. Korky Day (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding CFRO

The problem I have with your edits regarding this station is that, as far as I know, CFRO is not the legal name of the station. If the station was say for example licensed in England, then fine the station's name would be Vancouver Co-Operative Radio, but radio stations in North America use call signs as their legal name, no matter how the owner brands them. For example, let's take a look at the recent license renewal of CFRO, [5], nowhere in the renewal does it list the name "Vancouver Cooperative Radio" as the licensed name, the name only appears in the field for the owner. Yes, the full name would be fine in some cases, but CFRO should be used in most cases. If you disagree with me on this, feel free to have let WP:WPRS come up with a consensus whether all radio stations in North America should be renamed to their branding. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 03:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

25th Amendment

It IS very germaine, as the debate over the non-elected status of VPs and, as it turned out, Presidents, was one of the main reasons the 25th did not pass until 1967. In every early scenario, the debate was about cabinet officers rather than an appointed VP, and I added what I did to point that out. It is germaine and important to the entire discussion about the 25th amendment and the controversies that surround it. Themoodyblue (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• I can't find the action of mine to which you refer. Korky Day (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Korky Day. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)