User talk:Cultural Freedom

Introduction

I'm very new here, but please don't hesitate to say Hello! Cultural Freedom June 9, 2006; 15:47 (UTC)

My page being redirected to yours

Welcome to Wikipedia! I have no idea what is going on with that, but my best guess would be vandalism. Feel free to send me a message if there's anything I can do to help out or if you need some help finding a bit of info. -Smahoney 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. At first I thought it was someone trying to insult me by indirectly claiming I'm gay. But now I think it's someone making the claim that you and I are really the same person. Something to do with our views on Nietzsche, perhaps? If there's someone you've had heated arguments with in the past about Nietzsche, that's a good bet for who it is. --Cultural Freedom 07:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There's only one heated Nietzsche-related argument I've participated in directly before, and this isn't really the style the other party from that argument likes to use, though I suppose its possible. I wouldn't worry about it too much, though. If whoever-it-is keeps doing it, they will get banned. -Smahoney 19:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Mexican-American War

Thanks alot. It seems Wikipedia is full of Anti-American British people or something.Cameron Nedland 22:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, there are a lot of them, especially among the admins. --Cultural Freedom 23:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

British empire

I see you cut the assertion that the USA joined in the spread of colonial conquest in the late 19thC. I suppose the Philippines is being referred to. Any reason to deny this? Perhaps you could argue your case on the talk page. Thanks.--Shtove 22:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem was the phrasing "joining" in a "scramble for territory." That doesn't characterize US actions in the Philipines. But I wouldn't object to a rephrase, one that captures that US involvement there is viewed, at least by many historians, as a continuation of the war with Spain, which was started far closer to home (Cuba). I'll add smth to the talk page later tonight (or poss'ly tomorrow). --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-19 23:17 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi, Cultural Freedom. Sorry about the "Swinglish" disambiguation, I did that rather klutzily. The thing is, disambig pages are for distinguishing between several different articles (see WP:DAB), not between just any possible senses of a word. If there's only one relevant article that the disambig page points to, what you need is a redirect. Best, Bishonen | talk 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

No need to apologize! I was the one who was, mildly put, clumsy with my initial efforts on the disambiguation page. It was indeed incomprehensible. I cut & paste material from a different WP page and scarcely looked at the bizarre result before pressing Save Page.

And, yes, I was also a bit clueless about the very point of disambiguation pages. I'd been thinking it was a distinguishing among different meanings of a term or phrase, but it's a distinguishing among different meanings of terms or phrases for which there (currently) are WP entries. Sorry, I should take a pause from work and read through more of the policy/guidelines/etc. pages! --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-20 20:24 (UTC)

Nah, don't do that, better to learn by doing and not worry about making mistakes (they're easily fixed anyway). If you get mired in policy pages, you may never edit again! ;-) Bishonen | talk 22:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

Mexican-American War

I was taken aback by your wholesale reversal of my edits to this article with the description "sneaky editing." There was nothing sneaky about my edits. Most of the background material to the war comes from Mexican Texas. You seem to think I am pursuing some kind of agenda when I merely want to present both sides of the war, the Mexican as well as the American. I think an encyclopedia owes it to its readers to be objective. Griot 17:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I explained my revert on the talk page. Check it out. Note: I was planning to restore most of the parts of your changes that weren't (potentially) "sneaky." Best, --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-21 17:09 (UTC)

AA

Perhaps you can post the exact quote from Kagan on the talk? This what we've done with other wording. "Unavoidable" and "any" are the two words I dislike. Marskell 15:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have Kagan handy at the moment. For now, I'll "might"-ify the wording. --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-23 16:04 (UTC)

Requested Move, DP-->CP

I appreciate the advice. Sadly I am fairly new to all this, and as such I have no idea how to go about doing what you've suggested, but I'll poke around later and try and figure out how to add tags. JCO312 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the tip. I figured out to do the things you suggested and it moved the process along. Much appreciated! JCO312 04:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure! I'm glad the move proved uncontroversial. Political matters sometimes can get ugly.... --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-27 05:43 (UTC)

English

I noticed that you made some changes on the Breastfeeding article, changing the spelling of numerous words. The article was in British English (and now is again) and shouldn't be changed to American spellings. violet/riga (t) 17:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The page was in several varities of English. I made it conform to Wikipedia policy on spelling. See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Thanks for your cooperation. --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-25 18:11 (UTC)

No it wasn't. The only one in AmE was the WHO, an organisation that should be referred to using it's proper name, which uses a Z. violet/riga (t) 18:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The dialect was mixed (even if the spelling was less mixed). More importantly, the original non-stub versiona was in AmE. Please stop edit-warring about this. Policy exists for a reason. --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-25 18:24 (UTC)

You are edit-warring - over several articles too, it appears. "The dialect was mixed" means what? What dialect differences are there? MOS is not policy. violet/riga (t) 18:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I'm trying to contribute. I'm honestly just trying to improve Wikipedia. There are oodles of reasons why spelling guidelines should be followed strictly, in my view. You reverted my changes without (it would appear) even looking at the history of the article, which I looked at very, very closely before making my changes. Why did you revert me? It just creates bad blood.

? How am I edit-warring (more than say, you, who did the first revert, are)? I'm honestly just trying to improve Wikipedia. Please assume good faith. -- Cultural Freedom 2006-06-25 18:43 (UTC)

You are changing something that really doesn't need to be changed. There is no good reason to do what you have done, yet you're the one going on about the importance of content contributions. I put a massive amount of work into that article, taking it from a rather poor one to a featured article. violet/riga (t) 19:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed a number of changes - as mentioned above - to articles I have put a lot of work into as well. I would generally assume good faith but in this case it does seem to be part of a campaign to change things to AmE for the sake of it (why check "very, very closely" if not?). Consistent spelling and good grammar within an article are important, but you cannot expect to see AmE across the whole of Wikipedia. Without going into the ins and outs of the topic, by way of example, I've noticed a number of people will not contribute to Wikitravel because of the operator's uncompromising and intolerant attitudes. We don't want that here. Wiki-Ed 19:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no campaign to change things to AmE whatsoever! Check "very, very closely": this is to make sure I do NOT violate policy when spell-checking! By the way, you are not assuming good faith if you think my goal is to convert all spellings to American. And I agree we don't want intolerance. (Why aren't you castigating violetriga for changing estrogen to oestrogen, and anemia to aenemia?) We should all want adherence to policy and guidelines. It is delightful that a variety of dialects exists here. Let us not convert everything to some version of Commonwealth English. "Dialectic creep" shouldn't be tolerated. Let's adhere to policy and guidelines about spelling. It is that which will best prevent endless debates about this topic. Best wishes, Cultural Freedom 2006-06-25 19:43 (UTC).

Let us not convert everything to some version of American English. The breastfeeding article has had BE for over a year yet you now come along and change it? Why? What advantage is there to doing that? It's not like it's even a hot topic there right now and the dialect choice hasn't really ever been an issue. violet/riga (t) 19:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer. Here's a summary of much of my WP editing. I'm working incredibly hard on my dissertation. I take breaks by "flipping through" Wikipedia. Cool way to learn things. I see typos (what I saw in the breastfeeding article was "ie" -- instead of "i.e"), and I run the article through a spell-check. Before doing that, I check to see what the original über-stub spelling was. If it wasn't AmE, I usually don't change it, because AmE is the system I know. For breast-feeding, it was AmE. (You violated policy when you made some changes about a year ago: estrogen to oestrogen, etc.) So, with the breastfeeding text, I pulled the thing into Word, set to AmE, spell-checked, and put it back. That should not be controversial. Indeed, I assumed people would be thankful. Yet you think your having gotten away with a unmotivated guideline violation X amount of time ago (Does X need to be more than a year? Or what?) means you have the right to revert my well-intended changes. Why? I've thought through this question about spelling in WP very carefully. I'm convinced guidelines should be adhered to. And I see no guideline that resembles "people who get away with dialectic creep get to call the current state 'stable for so long it can't be changed back'". From my standpoint, you're just being imperialistic. I'm trying to assume good faith, but your reasoning seems to refer to own preferences, not to guidelines or policy. --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-25 20:00 (UTC)

Actually "i.e." is not correct either, and should be changed to something like "such as".

What is the point of changing the thing to AmE? It's hardly the most important thing that you could do to an article. Any spelling change is controversial, and for you to come along and do what you have done is rarely seen as anything but negative. I understand your good intentions, so perhaps it shows more of a Wikipedia naivety than anything else. You also keep using the word policy when it simply is not - as I explained, those guidelines are there to help in the majority of cases but cannot be expected to be correct in all situations.

How often do you check the history and find an article to be of BE beginnings but leave it as American? violet/riga (t) 20:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

1) "ie" is incorrect, was my point. That's what got me to do my dissertation-break thingy of spell-checking. 2) The point of making spelling uniform is to make WP be more professional. 3) I've changed to OED a few times, since I feel comfortable with that spelling system. As I said, I don't feel comfortable with the other non-American spelling systems. 4) I'm aware that the guidelines guide, as opposed to dictate. Still: when you say the guidelines can't be expected to be correct -- and you are of course right -- what is the ethical remainder that determines what is correct? Here, it seems to be your will. If it isn't your will, what is it? 5) Are you willing to undo your spelling changes to estrogen and anemia? If not, why not? Was it correct for you to make those changes? Is it, now, correct for them to remain? --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-25 20:36 (UTC)

1. I was just pointing out that "i.e." should be changes.
2. Spelling is uniform if it is British English too, and it was uniform before you made changes.
3. .
4. You have to have some common sense, as per my explanations.
5. I can't recall changing it and thus cannot explain my reasoning, but it does appear to have been against guidelines, but as I did so much work on the article I don't think it was a major thing.

violet/riga (t) 20:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Common sense is precisely not common. There is tremendous diversity here. Your sense, like your will, is not universal. Re #5, what you're suggesting is that the guidelines should be modified: it's not the first überstub version that matters, it's the favored spelling of the most recent active contributor? Seems like a bad idea. --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-25 21:05 (UTC)

Not what I said at all. Re-read the points I make at Talk:Breastfeeding. violet/riga (t) 21:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it to be a consequence of what you're saying. --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-25 21:14 (UTC)

And a consequence of your preferred system is that numerous articles can be converted to AmE simply because they were started in AmE by the founders of Wikipedia. I don't see how you can have difficulties understanding why my common sense approach is better, and why you think that it is so damn important, after all this time, to come along and change it over to what you think is best. violet/riga (t) 21:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The approach you refer to as a "common sense" approach seems to be: if an article has a more or less stable spelling (and nearly stable dialect) for a certain period of time (to be determined -- correct me if I'm wrong -- by the will of an admin), that trumps established, discussed, written up WP spelling guidelines. I don't believe that's better partly because the community hasn't discussed it as a policy, but mostly because it means that someone can change the official spelling of a page via violations, and just hope that no one catches them, or that they're powerful enough (for ex. by dint of their admin status) to keep people from changing them back. That principle, when generalized (and brought up to a much, much more important plane, to be sure!), is why the UK can claim Northern Ireland. Mistakes are mistakes. The passage of time shouldn't turn devils into angels.

As for why it's important, well, for the same reason the UK should (eventually, and only if care is taken to protect the rights of Protestants) get out of Northern Ireland. But you still haven't answered my question: why is it so important, so damn important, for you not to change the spellings back to estrogen and anemia? Think about. And please answer, if you would. --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-25 21:40 (UTC)

Suddenly we're talking politics? Can we not compare the two please.

You talk about me being an admin. Well, if you point out any time that I've used my admin rights then you have a valid reason for bringing it up, else it is inconsequential.

I have already explained (in two place) why I won't change back. I have given reasons that we should use BE in the article, none of which you have been able to dispute. I changed it over a year ago, rightly or wrongly. It has remained BE since then and should continue to. I won't change it back because that would take them out of line with all the others. Yes, I know you want them all AmE, but (and I'm hoping you can understand this) I disagree. violet/riga (t) 21:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been able to dispute them. (Let's leave this on the talk page of the article... :) ) As for politics: it was an analogy, an instructive one, I believe. --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-25 22:09 (UTC)

English in Aircraft Carrier article

I noticed that you re-wrote portions of the article to match American English. Would you happen to have information on whether the items you renamed tonnes > tons were actually Long or Short tons or whether they were metric tons (tonnes)? --Edward Sandstig 18:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The dangers of editing when sleep-deprived.... I changed it back. --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-25 18:41 (UTC)

Sorry, no

The reason I don't enable the email-to-user feature is (1) I get too much email as is, on all three of my email accounts (since I am a lawyer) and (2) I am careful to avoid creating attorney-client relationships or the appearance of such a relationship on Wikipedia. Basically, if you want to ask me something, you'll have to ask it in the open for the whole world to see, and it better be related to WP and not be anything personal. I'm sorry if that's not the answer you were looking for. --Coolcaesar 18:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jag älskar dig!!

Hej sötnosen!! Jag klarade det! Puss och kram, D

Bra, fast jag undrar om man kanske inte får skriva på främmande språk här... --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-28 18:49 (UTC) P.S. Translation: "Good, but I wonder whether one perhaps isn't permitted to write in foreign languages here...." 19:34 (UTC)

Nu har man kallat mig för en "sockpuppet". oj. vad fan är det för nåt? Pussar. Justice 7 11:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Nu fattar jag. Det är som handdocka. Tror wiki är ju Borg.

Charles Barrow

Thank you for correcting my practise to practice, I tried to write the whole article in American English as it is about a US citizen, but I tripped up on practise, maybe with more practise my practice will be perfect.--RMHED 20:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Practice/practise is one of those words that US-ers and UK-ers should just flip a coin on and agree to spell the same way. But these things won't matter in a few decades, since we'll all be speaking Chinese. --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-28 20:55 (UTC)

Mandarin, Cantonese,Wu, Min, Xiang, Hakka or Gan or one of the others maybe?

Alas... There will likely be a major division, a Chinese Samuel Johnson and a Chinese Noah Webster will create nightmares that will last at least two centuries.... --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-29 08:28 (UTC)

Capitalism

[1] This is just what I was talking about. Whole article was recently rewritten by 172 and now it’s too critical of capitalism. I can’t add POV tag back because I would break 3RR. If you agree that there is a NPOV problem, can you add it? -- Vision Thing -- 10:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm off to a meeting right now. Let me chew on this. Something definitely needs to be done, but it may be that a rewrite would be a better approach (though it would take much more time, of course....) --Cultural Freedom 2006-06-30 12:22 (UTC)

Re:American versus British spellings

Your message made me really happy to hear that violet/riga did that. It's sad that she believes that one shouldn't assume good faith because you don't share their opinion. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 11:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Encounter categorization

Are you certain a CIA publication run mostly by Americans should be in the category "Literary magazines of the United Kingdom?" I have no strong objections at all -- just asking. The categorization strikes me as a bit of a stretch (but only a bit). Best, Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-04 13:27 (UTC)

No problem. I have returned it to the more embracing cat which is less contentious. SilkTork 13:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. For the record: it's really not a big deal to me, personally. I was just thinking that your average Englishman -- who likely isn't too terribly in love with the U.S., and certainly not with the CIA -- might be aghast to see this publication categorized as in any way an "English" publication. -- Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-04 16:23 (UTC)

• Possible. People can get offended over the most trivial things. A common one in the British Isles is to assume that all Brits are Englishmen. That tends to offend the Scots, Irish, Welsh and all the women as well! I understand there are similar umbrages taken in New Zealand and Canada. I think some people like to have something to moan about! Regards! SilkTork 09:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Another is to refer to Ireland as part of the British Isles. Seriously - look here if you want to see a good scrap.--Shtove 16:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-biased descriptions of spelling differences

It is standard on WP, and has been for years, to link start the article with whatever form of language is being used, and then in brackets give the alternative version and state what form of English it is). That is how articles ALWAYS are written on WP. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The way these are written is clear and precise and used all over. Please follow the agreed format. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not used all over. I've seen my version more often. Anyway, I was just trying to improve the encyclopedia. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-04 16:11 (UTC)

The problem is that it suggests that one spelling is normative. It's much more instructive to enable people to go to the spelling differences page and draw their own conclusions. And we're trying to be instructive, yes? By the way, I see no policy or guidelines suggesting this is an "agreed" format. Tiocfaidh ár lá, Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-04 16:05 (UTC)

Email me, I know how we can fight these orthographic imperialists

I'm sort of in and out with Wikipedia, but some issues are important. This one I'm willing to fight for. --WikiFair1 20:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm totally crunched for time right now (and I can't email you because you haven't enabled emailing), but, yes, fighting orthographic imperialism is a Good. But a fight not fought above the board often ends up failing to achieve its ultimate goals, so I'd want any such efforts to be on the up and up, but I'll say more later. (Might take a few days.) --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-04 21:12 (UTC)

Sorry. I've now set up an email address, but I see you're gone for a while. Please contact me when you've returned. --WikiFair1 09:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear these British orthographic imperialists say something honest, for once? "I wish these fat, infantile Americans and their infantilized culture would disappear, and I HATE the fact that our empire was compressed back to a little island, and I'm willing to do ANYTHING to limit the influence of these stupid fat Americans!!" It would make direct communication with them much easier. --WikiFair1 09:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Jtdirl on spelling

The name for that form of English is American English. It has been, and continues to be, the standard on WP that when an article is written in either form, (British English or American English) the other form is placed in brackets with the name of the form of English, followed by its usage. If the humour article was written in American English, the format used would bve

Humor (Humour in British English) . . .

Whether you like that system is irrelevant. That is how millions of Wikipedia articles are written. As you have seen, any deviations from the agreed format will simply be reverted by various users to the norm. Get used to it. That is how articles are written on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 12:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for evidence that it's the agreed to format. Could you please provide some? Thanks in advance for your cooperation and reduced combativeness! :) --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-05 12:26 (UTC)

Jooler

Hi. Thanks your comment on my talk page. User:Jooler has deleted my comments again though, he doesn't seem very interested in discussion. 195.18.216.204 08:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's give him a few hours to relax, then try again. His behavior is really unacceptable. He may need to be blocked. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-10 08:35 (UTC)

"He's one of these angry, British orthographic imperialists that have flooded Wikipedia in the last year." - Firstly I've been on Wikipedia since September 2002. - Secondly this is a personal attack! Thirdly the guy is a troll. Fourthly from looking at your talk page and from the talk page of User:WikiFair1 you also appear to be actively involved in trolling on this particular issue. Goodbye - Jooler 08:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually do not think my description is necessarily as personal an attack as you might think. And I am convinced it is correct. (Is "this guy is a troll" a personal attack in a way that violates any WP guidelines/policies?) I could defend my claim about you, if you wish. And you might be surprised how little you take the fully developed version of my claim to be insulting! Think about it for a few minutes. Anyway, the guy is not clearly a troll. He's making some good points, it's just that he should be developing these points elsewhere. Let's be kind and productive and point him to that elsewhere. Isn't that the best approach? --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-10 08:45 (UTC)

I am not trolling on this particular issue. (That was a personal attack, wasn't it?) (As for WikiFair, I don't know.) I strongly believe 1) the WP guidelines and policies on spelling are a mess, 2) the first non-stub version of an article should nearly always determine the correct spelling down the road (that is, that that is the right way to de-messify WP guidelines on spelling), 3) there has been a lot of unsavory behavior by British orthographic imperialists (and some by American OI's as well, to be sure!). Those three factors motivate my actions. This is not trolling. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-10 08:51 (UTC)