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)

Indeed. But I think the situation is very complicated. There is a lot of unspoken ressentiment against the U.S., to be sure. But there's other stuff that's less crazy. I'm going to try to write something lengthy about this sometime soon. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-11 09:49 (UTC)

Why is it when I am critical of something emanating from the USA I get accused of being anti-American but I'm never accused of being anti-French when I say that their motorway toilets are disgusting, or that they are very good at losing wars or anti-British when I says Tony Blair is a tosser. It's a gross generalisation, but in my limited experience too many Americans seem to take this kind of criticism as a personal affront. Jooler 13:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I can't answer your questions (be they rhetorical or not). Personally, I can't be certain what is driving you; and I don't know what WikiFair1 thinks. There's some evidence that you are motivated by what one could capture with "Shucks, my country isn't a superpower anymore," but I honestly wouldn't pronounce judgment on you on that score. I simply don't know you. You so far haven't struck me as entirely reasonable, but again, that's just a very provisional judgment. Anti-Americanism is an extremely complex phenomenon. I'm only beginning to plumb the depths of it. And I certainly haven't plumbed your depths. It could be that most of your motivation is rooted in experiences at WP during a time what it was indeed U.S-dominated -- a time when any attempt to change the spelling of "Humor" to "Humour" would have to be applauded, regardless of its failure to square with policy and guidelines -- and you haven't seen how much that has changed, indeed reversed. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-11 14:05 (UTC)

"Personally, I can't be certain what is driving you; and I don't know what WikiFair1 thinks. There's some evidence that you are motivated by what one could capture with "Shucks, my country isn't a superpower anymore," and " - What on earth are you talking about? I was born in Ireland to Irish parents. I've more reasons to resent the British and its empire than most. "You so far haven't struck me as entirely reasonable" - How so? "It could be that most of your motivation is rooted in experiences at WP during a time what it was indeed U.S -dominated" - When was that? This place has always had a flood of people editing from all over the world. 14:54, 11 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)

There is barely a day goes by that I don't find someone changing the spelling in a particular article from British to American spellings claiming that that the page contains "spelling errors" or making some unsourced claim that that Wikipedia should only use American spellings, or that it should use American spellings because Wikipedia is based in the US or that the British spelling is stupid or some other poxy excuse. British readers on the other hand tend to read article written in American English and just accept that it was written by an American. It is a constant battle to revert these changes and virtually impossible to catch every single one. The plain fact is that there is a continual slide towards American English and articles written in British English are constantly under siege by American English editors who moan about the spelling. You only have to look at Talk:Theatre, Talk:Grey , Talk:Yoghurt, Talk:Aluminium and countless others where the talk pages are full of people moaning about the spelling. You will find few if any similar discussions on the talk pages of articles which use American spelling. Your intervention on the Talk:Humour merely aggravates the situation. your portrayal of on the Humour talk page of "people out there who are motivated primarily by a desire to extirpate every single trace of American culture" could not be more contrary to the facts. Quite the reverse is true. It might be perceived from those talk pages that quite the reverse is true. Please just accept the situation as it is and don't be one of those who troll pages written in British English and keep bringing up this issue and winding everybody up time and time and time again. Jooler 09:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You have far more experience on Wikipedia than I, and I sincerely believe you that, historically, spellings being switched from (some version of) Commonwealth to American has been a far larger problem than the reverse. However, what I've seen in my relatively short time here (a couple years ago, very briefly under a different name; occasionally under other names since then, and then, in a more focused way, for around a month) is that there are lots of changes in both directions made by very young people who aren't aware that their way of spelling isn't the only way, or who don't care about other ways. Many of these users don't log in, and it's easy to find out where they are: many have U.S. IP numbers, many have UK IP numbers.

But if we look at the people who don't fall into this "clueless" category, the situation on Wikipedia, as I've seen it, is that whenever a battle comes up, the non-U.S. side generally wins. There are clearly people out there who always vote "against the U.S." in all WP matters that come up for a vote (not just about spelling) just because they are "against the U.S." Partly this may just be because many of the non-Americans (especially the English) have the sort of ressentiment that always attends loss of empire. When you can weaken the Big Guy, esp. when it's the Big Guy who removed our Big Guy status, do it! It may also be that Americans really aren't imperialistic (they have other problems, even many whose consequences look like imperialism, but Americans are oddly open to the "Other" in a way the British never were). Americans may "moan" about spellings, but these are mostly new users. You refer them to WP policy/guidelines, and they almost always stop moaning. Not so anti-American orthographic imperialists.

I would never look for pages that are in British English and bring this issue up for no reason. But if I see a page I believe should not be in British English, I will bring it up. I will not, then, accede to your wish to "accept the situation as it is," because I think the situation as it is is bad, and I want to improve Wikipedia. In time, you may see the goodness of my motivation. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-10 09:23 (UTC)

"whenever a battle comes up, the non-U.S. side generally wins" - Examples? Jooler 09:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Humor, theater, List of terrorist organizations, to name those that come to mind after two or three seconds of reflection. The case of "theater" is particularly disturbing, since someone spent a lot of time taking the question seriously, and many orthographic anti-Americans clearly voted without thinking. It was just business as usual: "A chance to eliminate an American spelling?! YES!!!" --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-10 14:49 (UTC)

Theatre was moved after a vote here in which USians argued to move on the basis that that spelling is more correct for the dramatic art itself while the other spelling better fits the building. What are you complaining about? I don't see the argument regarding List of terrorist organizations where is the argument? Jooler 15:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to use the internationally most common spelling, i.e. the ones with most google hits. For example meter vs metre, meter has almost ten times more hits than metre. This is partly because meter is also used in other languages, this should also count since this is the international wikipedia. 195.18.216.204 09:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Right So you believe that Google hits without context are representative of usage do you? Well you give an interesting example: "Meter" is the correct spelling in British English, for a measuring device e.g. gas meter, parking meter etc. So that particular Google test proves precisely nothing. Jooler 09:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Must work for at least a few hours. Back later this afternoon (European time), or poss'ly tonight, with responses. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-10 09:52 (UTC)

If you take a look at what it says under "in other languages" in the meter article, you'll see it's meter in 16 languages vs metre in just 5. 195.18.216.204 10:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So what? Jooler 10:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the most common international spelling. The English wikipedia is the international wikipedia. If there are two possible spellings in English, wikipedia should use the one that's most common to international users. 195.18.216.204 10:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Who says? Jooler 10:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do, though it's obvious that you don't agree with me. 195.18.216.204 10:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your opinion is or whether I agree with you or not. It's not Wikipedia policy. Jooler 10:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Jooler- The response -- "It doesn't matter what your opinion is" -- either is the result of extremely sloppy reading, or it is bullying. 195.18.216.204 clearly was speaking about what WP policies should be, not whether a particular suggestion conforms to current policies. (See his/her use of the word should.) If 195.18.216.204 were a newcomer, s/he might incorrectly draw the conclusion that it is wrong to question WP policies. Making someone think that constitutes really bad behavior. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-10 14:56 (UTC)

Bullying? It doesn't matter what his opinion is, it doesn't matter what my opinion is. What matters is the policy and consensus. Jooler 15:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you meant to say: "It doesn't matter what your opinion (alone) is, nor whether I (and just I) agree with you. What matters is the opinions of all, or nearly all" (or something to that effect), then, yes, it's not bullying, but it's a rather weird misreading of what 195 wrote. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-10 15:22 (UTC)

The policies are based on the opions of Wikipedia's users. Anyway, you don't seem to about care policy when it comes to the humor article. From WP:MOS: "the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used." 195.18.216.204 12:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The guideline wasn't in place at the time the article was moved and all votes to move the page since then have failed. Why don't you just accept that the article is where it is, like I have to accept and article at color and maneuver and diarrhea and encyclopedia and sidewalk and moving sidewalk and fiber and egg plant and rutabaga and thousands of other pages with titles that are foreign to me. Jooler 13:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

When I see humour, I think of humour and not humor. 195.18.216.204 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

When I see "pavement" I think of sidewalk when I see "Dummy" I think of pacifier. When I see "Braces" - I think either Suspenders or retainer. When I see "suspenders" I think of Garter. When I see "Vet" I think of a veterinarian and not a war veteran. We all live in a world of confusion. And context helps us understand. When I see "minute steak" I don't think it's a very tiny bit of meat, I think it's a piece of meat that takes about a minute to cook. When I read cooking instructions to "separate two eggs", I don't think it means to put one egg on the left and one egg on the right, but a very stupid person might. Jooler 14:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"The guideline wasn't in place at the time the article was moved." What makes you think that's relevant? The guideline provides a way to adjudicate current disputes based on some element of the past. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-10 14:59 (UTC)

The original move was made without any guideline being in place, all votes to move it back to that page have failed numerous times, what are you complaining about? Jooler 15:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am moving sharply in the direction of placing you (at least for a while) in my "People who might be bright, but who seem unwilling to make an effort to understand things" category, and thus cease putting as much effort into communicating with you. More later, perhaps. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-10 15:31 (UTC)

Seeing how much controversy and discussion the issue of whether to use American or British English causes in many articles, I think the best solution would be to provide an option in the software to use British or American English. Then each user could select a preferred spelling and see only their preferred spelling. Is there a place to suggest such a feature? 195.18.216.204 15:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean, this could even be in the article itself. For example if the word was color, perhaps a special symbol could be put in front of the word in the wikisource to mark it for the software as spelled in multiple ways like it might say $$colour in the wikisource which could be translated to color or colour based on user preference. 195.18.216.204 15:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to the Village Pump, it's been suggested hundreds of times and rejected hundreds of times. But try again if you want. But don't be suprised if you get shouted down. Jooler 15:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I see. Looks like a proposal is already there at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals). 195.18.216.204 15:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And look here's one that the BrE users lost Talk:Train station Jooler 16:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That was one that BrE-ers "lost," but it was an attempt to go against WP spelling guidelines! The amazing thing is that it was even proposed, and wasn't immediately shut down! --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-10 19:10 (UTC)

".. attempt to go against WP spelling guidelines!" - Just like so many other articles that use BrE spelling, but in the other direction. You will note from that page that a number of BrE spellers voted to oppose the move. I would have voted to oppose it myself. Jooler 21:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the only thing that makes sense really is a software solution. The way things are now leads to nothing but endless flamewars. U195 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a software solution would be a good one. Thanks for your constructive thinking! Jooler was unnecessarily being a downer about your idea. I believe it's been proposed no more than a handful of times (not hundreds), perhaps only once in any serious, developed form. And I think it's a good idea. But another idea would be to enforce the rules that currently exist, and insist on the "first non-stub version" guideline. This means Airplane (which is now Fixed-wing aircraft or something) goes back to Aeroplane, and Humour goes back to Humor, etc., etc., and we all stop invoking mysterious "Yeah, well it's been at this 'newer spelling' for a while"-like principles, which is a big part of what leads to spelling wars that can't be stopped. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-10 19:16 (UTC)

"Thanks for your constructive thinking! Jooler was unnecessarily being a downer about your idea." - Hah - That's a real laugh. Somewhere in the archives from about three years ago you'll see the same suggestion from me. Howver over time i've becoem convicned that what we have now works just as well as it might and it educational toboot. Jooler 15:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)