User talk:Master Scott Hall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a courtesy for other editors on Wikipedia, please sign your talk page and user talk page posts. By adding four tildes (~) at the end of your comments, your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added.

Yes, and please follow your own advice! On the msg you left on my talk page, you just typed your name instead of signing with the four tildes. As a result, there was no link to your user page, which makes answering you more difficult. As to permissible/impermissible vs. included/excluded, I balk at calling any food "impermissible" except in a religious context (Kashrut etc.). That's why I went with permissible/excluded. Perhaps simply "Foods on the diet"/"Foods not on the diet"? --Angr (t·c) 18:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Late Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Master Scott Hall, 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:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Khoikhoi 04:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caucasus

Hi. Do you really think that the most common meaning of Caucasus isn't the region? I have to say that I disagree with you. --Khoikhoi 04:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello? --Khoikhoi 03:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Khoikhoi, sorry for the delay. Yes, I think that the most common meaning is the region, but it's probably not overwhelming. From my experience, the mountain range is a very common meaning as well. And many people don't think of looking up "Caucasus Mountains", in the same way that people look up "Himilayas" instead of "Himilaya Mountains". While most other subjects with the word "Caucasus" are generally related to this region, they are not necessarily about the region itself. In cases where where one use of a word is greatly predominate over other uses, then yes, you're correct. I just don't agree that the region outweighs the other meanings by that much. --Master Scott Hall 19:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but you are aware that there is now a large number of pages linking to Caucasus (disambiguation), right? Not be be rude or anything. I have another question - Why is Caucasus (geographic region) not at Caucasus (region)? --Khoikhoi 00:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem, I'll make it a point to go in and change those links. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. No rudeness inferred, nor implied. Geographic region? I did research it a little and found things named both ways. The reason I chose 'geographic region' - because that's what it is - as opposed to a political, socio-political, cultural, historical, admistrative, etc. All of these are used in Wikipedia, and there are major differences between them. That's the kind of region it is. That being said, if there is a concerted effort going on to consolidate or otherwise make things more uniform, I am not opposed - just show me where to sign up.--Master Scott Hall 01:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
No, there isn't. You don't have to move it, it's ok. Would you like me to help you fix all the pages that link to Caucasus, by the way? --Khoikhoi 02:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure, that'd be great. Where should I start?--Master Scott Hall 02:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm.... How about you start at the top of the list and I'll start at the bottom, ok? --Khoikhoi 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
But actually, I have to do something else right now so I won't be doing it right now. --Khoikhoi 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, I have found that a large number of links to 'Caucasus' come from articles with the 'Template:Region' in them. I changed the template to direct to 'Caucasus (geographic region)', which seems to have worked. The problem is that, even though the template has been changed and does work, on the 'Caucasus' page, the 'what links here' is still pulling up all of the pages that should have been effected by the changed template. I am no template expert - have I missed some sort of detail?--Master Scott Hall 22:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they are still on the "what links here" list because those pages haven't been edited since you changed the template. Once someone edits it, it will be changed. --Khoikhoi 01:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have to say, upon fixing numerous dab links, virtually all of these pages are supposed to link to Caucasus (geographic region). I don't think the page move and creation of a dab page was such a good idea. --Khoikhoi 03:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I must concede. I think you may be right, but if you've gotten as many done as I have, we must be approaching half-way. I would just as soon finish it, but if you don't agree, I'd be happy to finish it solo. I think I'll chalk it up as one learned - and think twice next time.--Master Scott Hall 03:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
No, but I really think this should be moved back to how it was. --Khoikhoi 03:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a good idea to fix any images like this, just so other people don't get the wrong idea on how to add images to articles. --Khoikhoi 03:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Now, how was that again? Delete the dab. Move Caucasus (geographic region) links to Caucasus. Change Template:Region back. What else?

On the image, is there a way to find the bot and change it so that we won't be going in circles?--Master Scott Hall 03:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

For the first comment, I think that's pretty much it. For the second one, try asking on Wikipedia:Bot requests. --Khoikhoi 04:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Master Scott Hall, the move you made was really not helpful. Please read Talk:Caucasus (geographic region)#Bad move and don't make this situation worse than it is. I would also advise that you read up on what dabpages are intended for. In this case disambiguating XXX Mountains from XXX doesn't serve a purpose other than to make it more difficult to link directly to XXX.
Peter Isotalo 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Peter, as you can see from the discussion above, it has been pointed out, and I have accepted that this move was a mistake. It seemed like a good idea at the time. I do, however, appreciate your discussion regarding why it is bad to do this. I do plan on correcting it over the next couple of days. I have learned my first big lesson with Wikipedia. I am sure more will follow. --Master Scott Hall 17:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Good luck in the future, then. :-)
Peter Isotalo 04:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll need it.--Master Scott Hall 04:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homeschooling

Please see my response to your post on my talk page. — Frecklefoot | Talk 02:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homeschooling

Welcome aboard. I agree with you that Wikipedia is spectacular for self-education at all levels. I sincerely hope your family chooses homeschooling if that is right for you. I know that in particular the homeschooling article could benefit from someone who is unbiasedly considering the subject. What we usually get instead is people who want to add links to their personal homeschooling page (which usually consists of nothing more than a list of children and a couple of "homeschooling is great" slogans). The challenge, of course, is to find the right balance between "being bold" and working within consensus. When in doubt, discuss a change on an article page. (And if anyone ever reverts anything you do, assume yourself to be in doubt and discuss on the article page.)

I've added your project to my watchlist, and I'll be looking in in the future to see how things go. Good luck. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you. I hope to assemble a great team for this project. I know it won't be a perfect team, but I am striving for well-rounded at least. I am committed to NPOV, and will do my dangdest to assure that's what we get. Several of the Users that I have invited are veterans to the Homeschooling and realted articles, and seem well-versed in combatting POV. As I have said, I am a relative newbie when it comes to editting, but have a strong background in teamwork. I'm sure that my knowledge of WikiEtiquette will grow, as will my "boldness". I hope you will join our effort. Thanks, Master Scott Hall 23:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not very confident on wikipedia yet, but I have created a few articles. I am currently being homeschooled, and I would like to know more about what you want people to do. I would like to help out in any way I can. Lolly 23:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No worry's, confidence comes with time. We are currently soliciting people who have recently completed, or are currently active in homeschooling, both as teachers and students. Please feel free to read the Homeschooling project page and the discussion page. Pay special attention to some of the previous conversations, as they help address some of the most obvious questions about the project. This may help you to evaluate whether you want to participate. If you have any specific questions of your own, please feel free to ask. I have started laying the ground work in developing the structure of the project, but we will need several more committed participants to get the project underway in earnest. Thanks for your interest, and I hope you find the project worthy of your help. Master Scott Hall 23:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Having read through what you suggested me to, I would be happy to help in any way I can. I'm not sure just how much use i'll be to you but I am more than willing to learn and help. Is there anything imparticular you need to know, and is this a project based in the USA? I am in the UK and I would also be happy to supply you with information about how it works in our nation too. Lolly 00:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
We are currently just researching the existing articles related to homeschooling and other non-traditional education techniques. So far, most interested parties are in the US. But we do need international input. Most of the articles in this field are US geared, with a handful from the UK and Australia (perhaps a couple Canadian). Your perspective would be an asset to help this become more balanced, internationally speaking. If you could scan through the articles in the research page, and try to get a feel for what is missing, that would be great. In other words, what can be done to make them more world relevent, or at least add UK relevency. If you can, add a section to the Homeschooling article about the UK system. Remember, be bold, and be neutral. Also, if you know others that may be interested, send them this way. Thanks, Master Scott Hall 05:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to add your new WikiProject to Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects#Education —Wahoofive (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] First name

Is "Master" your first name? Or is that some sort of title? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no delusions of grandeur here. That's my honest-abe first name. You like? --Master Scott Hall 15:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project updates

Thanks for what you're doing, but in the future I'd rather just check the status of the project when I feel like it and have time. Good luck, and I'm sure I'll be seeing you in the future! Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the invite!

I would be proud to join you and your team to work on WikiProject Alternative education. I appreciate you taking it upon yourself to launch this very useful project and look forward to helping in any way that I can. Kidigus 04:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Questions

Thank you for your invitation to contribute to this homeschooling project. It is well known (I think) that I have an interest in alternative education. It is also well known that in this regard I have my concerns about Wikipedia as a resource for Homeschoolers. I am the father of 4 homeschooled children and have been homeschooling for 23 years.

NBSC (Not Back to School Camp) runs an "Unschooled" Wiki - you should certainly check with the kids there, perhaps rope in my son Zen Zenith (now 23) who has extensive experience with the community and is well known (by the kids) within it. Zen is now in College but I am sure you will find some good support if you can get their attention.

However, I am a little concerned - more for homeschool parents using Wikipedia as a resource, than the kids (who are very often capable of discerning for themselves). I can appreciate that a Wikipedia project to support homeschooling would be useful - I will appreciate it more if part of this project's goal is to help homeschoolers navigate the challenges that Wikipedia presents in terms of intregrity, reliability and content authority.

--Steven Zenith 00:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation; I would be happy to participate. I can continue to work on articles I've been trying to improve, such as Waldorf Education and Rudolf Steiner; also, I wrote my Master's Thesis on the evolution of the Philosophy of Education and would love to have time one day to bring this article a big step forward. This might be possible in a month or so. I'll look out for further areas to which I can contribute. It's a worthwhile project!! Hgilbert 10:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tulsa Riot

Is not it a politically correct article to show that whites were only culprits? What about blacks? After all, it was Dick Rowland who was involved in it. Sentences like "In the most generally accepted account, Rowland tripped upon entering the elevator and, in an effort to prevent himself from falling, grabbed the arm of Page, who subsequently let out a startled gasp or scream" or "In a less-accepted account, among others, it has been suggested that the two had had a lover's quarrel" or "The young men, having been at least momentarily assured of their friend's safety, agreed and left." or "By some accounts, a white man was killed by this bullet, though there is little evidence to support this claim." , author (?) just tries to paint blacks as saints and whites as devils. Agreed that Tulas riot was unhappy incidence, but viewing it with a prejudice only leads to distortion of the facts. This article needs to undergo an examination to remove pro-black bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by anonymous user 128.32.14.36 (talk • contribs).

I assure you that there is no bias intended here. As I have stated here, I pulled everything here from one reputable source. There is probably some political-correctness built into the source material, as it is a government report. I simply took out much of the legal ease. I am absolutely positive that there are many facts missing, and that both sides of the conflict were responsible in some way. I believe that both sides made irreversible mistakes which escalated the situation progressively further. However, finding verifiable sources on this subject is very difficult. Until an independent, neutral party conducts a thorough investigation (which we can not), many facts will remain a mystery. In fact, with only a handful of survivors (on either side) are still alive today, the complete truth may never be known. There were no witnesses to the elevator incident, so no one knows the truth. It may very well be that something completely different than either of these descriptions is what really happened. Much of the information available on the internet is either highly biased (both black and white), or highly redundant. There is very little new information to be found (at least very easily). I welcome other contributors to add verifiable content to this article. I have no affiliation with either side, therefore I have no POV to push.
That being said, your pattern of deleting and changing critical content of particularly sensitive articles, with no explanation, leaves me with the impression that you do have a POV to push. If you wish to be taken seriously, by me or anyone else here, then I would politely suggest you to change your editing habits and come to the table with serious neutral contribution. Vandals are not highly regarded. Another step toward general acceptance would be to identify yourself and sign your work. Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 14:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Templates

Hi there, well, it looks like well-intentioned, and very focussed work that Rfrisbie is doing, so s/he should definitely be encouraged, and welcomed. The Portal:Education now looks much better, though I think some categories (eg. Category:Education_by_subject) are a bit of a mess. But this is all a team effort, and we should all be able to critically appraise each other's work - we're all learning ourselves. I'll drop her/him a note now. Cormaggio @ 23:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I would still gently encourage a little more discussion, especially regarding things like templates. If they are not done right (and I am, by no means, an expert), then they tend to become bulky and counter-productive. Other than that, I'm all for boldness. Maybe we can spearhead a category cleanup effort sometime soon? Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 00:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Category cleanups scare me - as David Gerard points out, they're like "crack" for people who tend towards OCD! But, more seriously, yes, I do think this would be helpful. Cheers. Cormaggio @ 12:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiversity

Hey there again. I just thought I'd stop by and tell you that Wikiversity is now up and running - I thought you might be interested. In any case, take care. Cormaggio is learning 13:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waldorf education

Could you have a look at the Waldorf education page and give your opinion of what would be most helpful as an article about alternative education? In particular, do you feel that it is encyclopediac in style, or what could be done to make it more so? Thanks! Hgilbert 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/s/User_talk%7EMaster_Scott_Hall_dc3c.html"