User talk:Jtdirl/Archive 11

What's your problem, man? I was just being friendly to this Wales guy. Can you spell pale?

Rabastan

Hi, the bit you quoted on the mailing list wasn't by the anon IP - rather, it was by User:Jnc and seemed to be aimed against the IP. The full diff is here... the sarcasm bit is just that, while the rest seems to advocate taking a balanced, NPOV approach.

(Still, I'm not commenting on the block of the actual anon IP guy, since I've not really been following that). Evercat 00:48, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I was wanting to ask you something. I remember a while ago you said about how to read news sources properly - you noted that if there was any indication of foul play in David Kelly's death, they would say "apparent suicide" instead of "suicide", as they were saying at the time.

Well they are saying "apparent suicide" a lot these days! [1] [2] Should I read something into this, or is it just because they don't want to be seen to be pre-empting the official enquiry? Evercat 11:57, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

They are saying 'apparent suicide' because the coroner’s inquiry into his death has been adjourned pending completion of the Hutton inquiry. Mintguy 21:19, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sysop reading list could use your input. Better educated sysops is the first step towards dealing with Wikipedia:troll war. We have some time to educate them before it starts in earnest, the current generation of orcs and trolls are very mild compared to what's coming. So let's get these readings in shape. Then, we'll see from there who is ready to really work out a good way to defend what passes for truth around here. It's time to get this off the plane of dealing with cases one at a time, and build up some people who can see trends and come up with policy on a more than reactive basis. EofT

Graculus has been involved in an edit war on the Continuation War. His version is by and large NPOV and the other might as well have been written by JoeM. I'm far too busy to be involved at the momemnt, but it's a shame to have Graculus bare the thankless burden of maintaining high standards on that article alone. 172 16:37, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Irish Wikipedia - have you looked at it? I take a look from time to time to see if it somehow magically gets less crappy, but alas, no. I mean, Vicipéid? I know there's no 'w' in Irish, but there's no 'v' either, so why not Wicipéid? And An gceapann tú go mbeifeá fuar, mura raibh ciclipéid agat?? My Irish is really rusty (I was hoping that having an Irish wikipedia would inspire me to relearn it) but doesn't that mean "Do you think you would be cold, if you had your own encyclopaedia"? And shouldn't "mura raibh" be "mar bheadh"? I wouldn't even know where to start, because the software is completely different to what I'm used to (though I'd have to guess that rewriting the main page would be it).

My sisters are back to school soon, I'll see if they can get their teachers to have a look - the youngest attends a Gaelscoil, the older formerly attended one, and studies some subjects through Irish. Won't be till mid September though, I'm off to Ibiza Friday for some self discovery (alcohol tolerance levels :) -- Jim Regan 01:16, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I know I've gloated already, but 10 day forecast for Ibiza and Dublin. If it makes you feel better, I lost money on this - I took out a loan to pay for my brother to go, and decided to quit his job and go on the dole rather than work for spending money, and I only get 40% back. -- Jim Regan 02:32, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I loved your inverse proportion theory on opinion and expertise! It's incredibly applicable on so many different levels. 172 03:46, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ibiza's great. Cigarettes and beer are half the Irish price, and I had my first hangover since my 21st. Got a couple of nice scenery photos. Oh, and temperatures are higher than that forecast!! Take care. -- Jim Regan 16:03, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I run into a lot of GMTA around here, that's one of the things I love about the place. :) - Hephaestos 04:43, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good move on adding the link back to Talk:List of heterosexuals. I got sidetracked dealing with a bit of vandalism and by the time I went back to the above page you had already added it in. The lets talk about it on the talk page is one of the oldest tricks I have seen on wiki. Pages have ended up on the VfD page for weeks, on occasions before we reorganised the dates months, while everyone waited for a decision on the talk page and the chat there ended up meandering all over the place before dying of boredom. I am completely oppossed to the talk page route for that reason; it is simply a stalling mechanism. If we need to go off the VfD, we should go to a special delete debate page that has a definitive timeframe for reaching a conclusion. So we need to keep the decision focused on the VfD page and the week timeframe. (The other technique some use is to move the debate to the talk page, then delete any mention of the VfD nomination from the VfD and hey presto, everyone forgets that it has been nominated. The tricks some people use to stop their beloved pages being deleted, eh! :-) ) lol FearÉIREANN 21:24, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I took care of this. It will all take place on Talk:List of heterosexuals/deletion from now on. The timeframe is one week.

Alternatively, you could note that I've routinely moved extensive deletion discussions to the relevant talk page in the past, and I will again in the future. Martin 21:44, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Similar comments apply to Zippy, I expect. Martin 21:35, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I moved this comment down abit as you appeard to have missed it:

I don't know if you will be able to help me with this but it's worth me asking, as I have some Irish Gaelic that I need to be confirmed correcrt, so is this the correct spelling (and a good translation)? "Ceol an ghrá" (The Music of Love). - fonzy

Question regarding something you wrote at Talk:Loyalist Feud. Evercat 18:31, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

ok ty for the help with the Irish Gaelic you gave me, I made a minor correction to Eurovision Song Contest 1972 re: an accent. Unfortunatly if u go to teh page u can se Ireland did not do too well of it. - fonzy

Refactoring[edit]

JTD, do you mind if I move any/all of your comments from talk:current events to other talk pages? I'm inspired by Martin's refactoring, but I thought I'd ask first so you wouldn't be shocked.

I'd like to move your superbly cogent remarks about the PA to someplace like talk:Mahmoud Abbas -- re: who's really in charge, Abbas or Arafat? --Uncle Ed 14:11, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The neo-fascist British National Party (BNP) candidate Nicholas Geri, who is of Italian descent, wins a surprise victory in a local government by-election to Thurrock Borough Council in Essex. The British Labour Party, which has a 21 seat majority on the Council, saw its candidate pushed into third place, behind the BNP and the British Conservative Party. Turnout in the by-election was 22%. [5]

I'm not bothered enough to remove this from Wikipedia:current events, but I'm not sure it warrants inclusion. Taking this ward for a council seat is hardly a groundshaking event. The turnout was only a 22% and a few hundred votes made the difference between 1st and 3rd place. It's not the first council seat the BNP have won (the currently hold 18). Ok it is news, if it does deserve inclusion in Wikipedia:current events, so does [3] :-)Mintguy

VfD organization[edit]

Please participate in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion before reverting to a format that many users have protested against.—Eloquence 02:35, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting VfD. You're braver than I am. :) Angela

James, please let us talk about finding better ways to keep VfD in check than a high maintenance split up solution. Even Hephaestos agrees that the changeover was not done in compliance with community policy (although he thinks that I overemphasize this policy, which is a criticism that I gladly accept). He has stopped reverting the page so that we can do this the right way without wasting our time on edit wars. Furthermore, I have just reorganized some VfD stuff to keep the page size down, which would be lost by reverting the page. The discussion seems to be moving to more productive arguments now, so let's continue in this vein; if it turns out that there is strong majority support for the subdivision solution, it will be back up and running in a few days. What do you think? —Eloquence 05:41, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure; his imperious refusal to discuss anything on his user talk page initially made me think it might be DW, but he's not showing any other symptoms so far. I'm still not sure. - Hephaestos 05:47, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Deletion threshold[edit]

Another matter which influences the length of controversies regarding deletion is whether we delete only if consensus can be reached (one or two non-regulars don't matter much, but if regulars oppose strongly, a page is usually not deleted), or whether we delete if there is support above a certain threshold (say, 70% or 80%). Regarding the list of heterosexuals I think you argued with such percentages of the vote, which are however not relevant as per our current deletion policy (which completely glosses over the issue of the ultimate sysop decision, whereas VfD itself simply refers to "consensus"). I think the whole process could be streamlined greatly and pages would be removed quicker if we had such a percentage threshold. This would also encourage tabulation of votes which would again make the page more compact. So if you want to argue for that, you have my support.—Eloquence 06:14, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

Talk page deletion[edit]

Hi, I've just undeleted the heterosexual deletion discussion. I agree it's kind of silly, but it may be a useful precedent and in this case it's good to keep it documented so we can refactor it and refer to it later. This is in our own interest in case someone uses these "If we have that list, we also need this list" argument again -- saves us time. Also, Martin explicitly requested that the talk page not be deleted ("Whatever happens, this talk page should be kept").—Eloquence 21:30, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)

I'm such a dumbass. I went to Manumission last night, and forgot my fscking camera. Feel free to point and generally mock me, it's well deserved. The reputation is pretty accurate, it does seem to be the biggest club ever, and it sure as hell felt like the best. Pity about the prices (tickets €45, drinks €11.50) - Jim Regan 13:17, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

You'll love this.

Paragraph I recently deleted from Nazi Germany

Hitler "reannexxed" Austria in ?1938? in a military action he called "Liberstruam"(Living Room in german).Although it was essentially without any fatalities, it was in clear violation of the Versialle Treaty and Austrian right to self determination. England and the U.S.A. decided to negotiate with and finally appease Hitler through a English diplomat named Neville Chamberland. Mintguy 09:20, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems a strange thing to do a couple of days after saying "I think it is a very bad idea to move discussion to talk pages" on the Vfd talk page but I thought I would try it anyway. If VfD has to stay as one page there needs to be some way of keeping it smallish. Angela 23:41, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)

Howdy. I'm back from Ibiza (Sob!). At least the weather was starting to get colder when I left :) -- Jim Regan 15:06, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if someone else were to deal with the talk page, actually, perhaps Angela or Martin? - Hephaestos 22:45, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. As for debates that have taken place within deleted Talk pages, those debates aren't lost per se - they are available for recovery on the wretchedly huge Special:Undelete. If you like, I can search for any such debates; I've been looking for a long, tedious task since my campaign against Wikipedia:Subpages to be moved has been winding down. -- Cyan 23:39, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hello Jtdirl (I think I have not tell you hi in a long time -))

Re:your comment on User talk:Ducker page. I value your opinions very much. Not so much Ducker ones. I somehow have trouble to consider valid the opinion of a user, whose only contributions basically consist in reverting other people talk pages :-) Take care Anthère

Hi (eh, twice in the same day !)

Of course, everyone is important. Perhaps those only reverting other people edits as well :-) Even if only to keep the pressure on :-) I dunno for articles (the lists were bad), but I am quite sure he reads his talk page. I don't feel misrespect for me when he blanks it after me. But I understand that people keep reverting his blanked page, as a sign of their displeasure. Not as "please understand the way you are doing things is wrong" but rather as "please understand we think the way you are doing things is wrong". Which is sligthly different.

Imho, we are just bothering ourselves with very tiny issue indeed. And making a mountain of a minisculus hill.

And yes, Duker certainly was well intentioned. So were (are) you. We just don't have the same opinion. No big deal :-)

Please also, have a look at this buddha last contributions. Except for blanking his talk page, they are OKAY. None of his recent contributions has a background for banning. But even if he turns not to be a valid contributor in the end, I will still not consider banning is the right solution as respect to blanking own talk pages.

Take care

Anthère 18:27, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

JTD, please don't tease Lir. He's even more sensitive than RK.

Heh heh. Adam is back in one of his whining, whinging moods again. Oh goody. Don't ya just love him!

Laughing at another contributor is not nice.
Personal remarks like one of his whining, whinging moods aren't polite.
And can you really defend Oh goody. Don't ya just love him!?

Lir may or may not have reformed. If not, the nicer we are to him the quicker I can build an airtight case for dismissal. But if he has reformed, let's give him a chance: don't pick on him. Please. --Uncle Ed 16:18, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The page is, as the page name makes clear, the final archive of a delete debate about a since deleted page. Once the decision is implemented, based on the vote, and in the set timeframe (7 days) the page ceases to be 'live' and is kept, alongside other /delete debate pages, as an archive which is no longer meant to be edited, merely kept as a record. Adam Rickleff seems to think (familiar *sigh*) that he alone can edit such pages to doctor votes and add in comments even though everyone else doesn't. I reverted simply to preserve the agreed community archive, rather than Adam's 'new' edit, created weeks after the page ceased to be 'live'. Maybe all /delete pages, once they have moved from a live debate to an archive record, should be protected automatically. FearÉIREANN 00:40, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I removed this from wikipedia:protected page - now that the page is unprotected and (hopefully!) everything is resolved, I thought that might be best. I left the notice that the page was protected by Ed, and added a note that it has now been unprotected. I don't know if you want to add your text to wikipedia:problem users or the page in question? Or indeed back on wikipedia:protected page, if you think it belongs there? Or just delete it... Anyhow, seeyas. Martin 19:12, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hello again. After a month of very limited activity, I can see that little has changed. Lir is back as Lir, and he's playing the same tricks on you.

My activities, now picking up pace once again, have changed little either. Fred Bauder is also causing trouble, conflating typology with government-type in the Cold War article. It's just like that excruciating, protracted dispute on China, with the two of us comprehending that the Communist state is a clear-cut regime-type (and moreover that sourcebooks refer to regime-type), while others were squabbling over which of the latest typology, diminished sub-type, sub-variant of a typology put forward in political science fits the PRC best. Ironically, we were accused of agendas, despite being the only two who stated no opinions concerning any typology. And now, Fred's calling me the apologist once again, not even realizing what the argument's about in the first place. 172 22:33, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Don't get too mushy, just because I let you use that silly "rotten boroughs" term. We are still in an intense edit cold war over History of the Soviet Union where I am hellbent on eradicating the POV word "regime". If you collapse on any front, itll be a domino effect and pretty soon my legions will be knocking on the door of New Imperialism. Lir II of Koria

Pssst, archive this page. some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb

It is not in the least bit inappropriate for me to give you advance notification of my intent to address the issues regarding the History of the Soviet Union. LirQ

Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (see bottom)

Hello. I've replied about rotten boroughs on my talk page. :) By the way, you haven't really been using the POV term "regime", have you? *rolls eyes* -- Oliver P. 04:31, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I just removed some comments I had made earlier, assuming that you haven't read them yet. I did so because I might have been way off about Lir. In a single edit he nixed the b.s. in the privatization intro and articulated a very complex relationship in a succinct, comprehensible way. Unlike others, he pinned down the proper balance, being as suggestive as possible while avoiding crude reductionisms. His edit proved that he was fully engaged in the discussion on the talk page, not misinterpreting a thing.

Perhaps he's cooperative and adaptive after all. I think that the problems in the past stemmed from his unwillingness to listen to appeals of authority (and for that he should be praised). Perhaps it's just not enough to say to Adam, as a matter of fact, that some point (e.g., "regime" is a values-neutral term in this context) is a consensus among scholars. It might be necessary to demonstrate it analytically and empirically to him. He can be very stubborn over trivialities, and it can be a huge burden when demonstrating when his stubbornness is misplaced, but I've discovered that he can be flexible. In addition, he has the right attitude too. He's right to view any assertion with skepticism if he can't vouch for it with what he knows. No one's going to fool him.

Honestly, I though that you were insane to lobby on behalf of his return at first (especially after he had commented that he hasn't given up on the term "regime" in the articles on Soviet history). But I'm beginning to realize that you were right. If everyone cooperates with him, Lir can be an excellent contributor. 172 03:37, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I know Adam doesn't believe it but I have long believed that he is one of the brightest and most capable contributors to wiki. If he can manage to work with people rather than against them he could be one of wiki's best people, famed for the quality of his contributions rather than the rows he causes. FearÉIREANN 18:34, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi JT, a very minor question: I can't find validation of the spelling "diocesian" (in some articles, like St. Mary's Pro-Cathedral and Catholicism) vs. the more common "diocesan". Is "diocesian" UK/Irish usage? Just wondering! Harris7 02:02, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Despite what the BBC may have said (I asusme you were referring to Adam Hart Davis) - The term "Association Football" does not have any offical status. The Olympics officially call it "football" [4]. FIFA officially call it "football" [5]. No body "officially" calls the game Association Football. Mintguy 07:45, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

--- Its not me you called stupid, its poor Nicholas whom you slandered. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Yes, yes -- Im quite familiar why you chose to use the word regime; what matters is what the most common meaning of regime is -- what will the average reader think when they see the word regime? As we both know, just about the only time the average person has ever heard the word, was when George Bush explained that regimes were the building blocks of the "axis of evil". As such, the average reader will understand regime in light of the first definition of regime, as stated by Dictionary.Com:

1
- A -- A form of government: a fascist regime.
- B -- ...suffered under the...regime.

So long as the word regime remains there at History of the Soviet Union, essentially, the wiki is taking sides and justifying the Russian Revolution -- which is a violation of NPOV.

Lirath Q. Pynnor

I saw this accidentaly, but have to comment on it - are you trying to say that Soviet Union was not ruled by a form of government? Nikola 16:57, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hello :) I'm addressing to you as I've noticed you on Wikipedians by field of interest. I made a page on Orthodox Celts, and Irish music band from Serbia, and I wanted to ask you if you could go through their songs, mark the traditionals and link those traditionals that deserve a page on their own; you could also remake links to instruments or create redirects (I don't know how important is each of the instruments). If you don't think you could do it you could ask someone else you think could. Also, do you have any idea where should the page be linked from? I haven't found a list of Irish music bands... Nikola 16:57, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I am wrong, you are right (although only technically, which is all that counts I suppose) :-).

I emailed the FA. The term "Association Football" is used in the FA's official publication on the laws of the sport, updated every June, which is called "Laws of Association Football". So according to them that makes it official. However other than that, the term is 'rarely seen or heard now' (their words). Rule 1 of the "Rules of The Football Association" includes the line: "All Clubs and Affiliated Associations shall play and/or administer football in conformity with these Rules and also (a) the Laws of the Game and (b) the Statutes and Regulations of FIFA and UEFA". (no mention of Association Football). In the rules of the sport, which are drawn up boy the IFAB and are called the "Laws of the Game" there are no references to "Association Football", but to be honest the only references to "football" concern the ball itself. As far as the chaps who drew up the rules in 1863 were concerned they were making a unified set of rules for the game of 'football' out of the mess of rules that then existed. In those days the terms "using association rules" and "the association game" were as much in use as "association football".

Regarding the analogy to Tennis/Lawn Tennis. Many of the sporting bodies for tennis use the terms 'Lawn Tennis' in their names. This not the case with the professional sporting bodies for football. However a number of football clubs use AFC (Association Football Club) in their name. So that kind of evens it out.

Anyway, after arguing the contrary, I hope I don't look too much of a fool at the end of all this. Mintguy 18:16, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

a stupid question[edit]

Hi Jtdirl,

I have a really stupid question on the birth of the British Parliament. According to the information on this web, there was no standing parliament pre-1640s. So, when was the embro of parliament first formed, for what cause and under what circumstance?

I would be really grateful if you could send your reply to berrywai@hkusua.hku.hk

Thanks in advance, CC

Heh. I had to share this with someone. Apparently, I've been accused of not only being a Zionist, but part of the meta:Zionist Occupation Government of Wikipedia! Fun. Surely, this makes me a true Wikipedian. :-) Evercat 23:57, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, you should stop calling me Adam. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Is it just me or are there lots of new people running around? As for using my so-called "name" -- the harm is already done since there are links all over the wiki stating my name and my once private diary. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Was wondering about your opinion on these edits [6] - Hephaestos 19:27, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

the text below was cross-posted to User talk:Netesq, User talk:Jiang, User talk:Jtdirl, and User talk:Cimon avaro

I find what you have been writing about me frightly hateful and dishonest. The main problems, however, remain. You and your friends still are allowing a proven pro-Nazi viewpoint to be pushed on Wikipedia from Stevertigo and his friend Martin; the documentation came from his own edits, and has been analyzed by experts on the subject. Yet the Nazis are the heros here? That's isn't NPOV, that is anti-Semitism. Your refusal to admit this tells me things about you that I would rather not have learned. RK 00:51, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Also, I see that you still pretend to be confused about the issue. Two people kept harassing me on my own User Talkpage. I excercised my right to remove their comments from my Talk User page. All Wikipedia users have always had that right. Yet then other Wikipedians such as Angela began harassing me; shockingly, they reverted my edits to my own page, and restored the harassment. When I reported this non-stop harassment to the Wiki list, no one helped, and in fact people slandered me. You yourseld didn't do a damn thing to stop this harassment and vandalism; you never asked for them to be banned. So you left me no other option, literally. I thus was forced to temporarilly do the same thing to them that they did to me. However, I also mentioned this action to the WikiEn list...I was making a very simple point: If it is wrong for someone to do this to you, then it is also wrong for you to do this to someone else. Yet you allowed their harassment of me, and simultaneously pretended that they could not understand this point. You topped it off by falsely accusing me of vanalism. Well, that is just pathetic. RK 00:51, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I wonder how much harassment I can put on someone else's page (perhaps yours?) until I see someone (perhaps you?) remove it? Then I can do this again and again until you take action...and then you would be banned? Does this sound reasonable to you? Frankly, to me this course of action sounds like harassment, and its totally insane. Why you think that it was Ok for others to do to me, but not for this to be done to anyone else? Please do not continue with such harassment. RK 00:51, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl, could I persuade you to change your default abbreviation for Wikipedia to "WP" (or "the 'pedia" as others use but that doesn't shorten it much!) I think calling it "wiki" doesn't fit right with all the other wikis out there. Just my 2c which you can ignore if you can't get out of the habit! Thanks. Pete 12:47, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hey. Ever study Isaiah Berlin and positive and negative liberty? I was hoping to find someone to look over Positive Liberty/temp and tell me if I've made it better or worse than the previous page at Positive Liberty.... Evercat 22:19, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the uneat comment. I needed a laugh today. :) Angela 19:22, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

Spotted this on Distributed Proofreaders, thought you might be interested - Proportional Representation by John H. Humphreys -- Jim Regan 04:15, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still think usernames shouldn't be regulated. I guess I wouldn't do it again though. You're writing a newspaper article about Wikipedia mentioning me? Cool! I understand if you don't want to mention me after this. LDan 01:04, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

With all the latest hullabaloo with user:Liberal etc... I would like to ask what exactly FearÉIREANN meant, and is it political/ethnic/etc...戴&#30505sv 03:28, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC) --Go raibh maith agat, fear Eireann...戴&#30505sv 21:12, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Any comment on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions Odd capitalization in commercial names apart from "rv. That is incorrect"? Andy G 20:32, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I also think Wikipedia needs me, but wikipedia is not a single entity, rather a group of people. And seeing that somehow extremely few people feels concerned by me being blocked, even though I was acting in good faith and certainly not against the rules, I do not think I am so important that I should stay. Less than 5, for perhaps ... 100 wikipedians. Remember, consensus is at least 50 or perhaps 75 % ? 5 is miserable and not a consensus :-) (think over consensus...) In any case, Jimbo apparently decided I should not stay; not even answering or apologizing. So what ?

Anthère 10:57, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Re: the titles of Cardinals, please see Wikipedia:Village_pump#The_title_of_Cardinal. I believe the Vatican disagrees with your characterization of correct English usage, and presume their usage should be respected. --Delirium 19:56, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to not include honorifics in article titles at all, unless that is the only or primary name the person is known by. Hence, Franz Cardinal König should be at Franz König, regardless of whether Franz Cardinal König or Cardinal Franz König is correct. This is standard policy across all types of titles, including presidents, kings, dukes, and so on. --Delirium 23:39, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

My apologies; apparently this is no longer policy. I do recall a lengthy debate about whether to, for example, have articles at President John F. Kennedy or John F. Kennedy, and similarly at Prime Minister Tony Blair or Tony Blair (or Chief Justice William Rhenquist vs. William Rhenquist), and the discussion was in favor of a blanket policy against honorifics or titles in article titles (they were to be permitted in the articles themselves, just not in the titles). Apparently this policy was not maintained, however, so we have a strangely incoherent set of case-by-case policies now.

But in any case, my apologies, as my disagreement is apparently with the current policy, not with your implementation of it, as I agreed with the one that was reached and then apparently rescinded. --Delirium 00:09, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)

My apologies as well for being more forceful than warranted; I wasn't aware of the history of this issue or that it had been discussed at length (I probably should've checked the naming conventions page first). I still think the current method in running text is somewhat less than optimal, primarily because it's confusing to people not already familiar with it, but I'm not as staunchly opposed as previously. --Delirium 05:01, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)

BBC ONE[edit]

Sorry to bother you with more naming convention debates, but there is currently a discussion at Talk:BBC ONE over whether to move it to BBC One. You previously said something on this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. I hope you don't mind, but I just copied your response from there to Talk:BBC ONE. Angela 23:42, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

Since you're not only a professional historian, but also a professional encyclopedist, you'd be positioned to speak with the greatest authority when explaining the principles and functions of an encyclopedia. It would be a great help to User:Gboy if you could elaborate on this. Reacting to a dispute on the Shenzhou 5 talk page, he stated, and reiterated, his feelings that "analysis" has no place in an encyclopedia. He seems to be confusing an encyclopedia with an almanac. Since he is a very capable new user, it would be a shame if he started to habitually demand on other talk pages - due to his misconceptions concerning the nature of an encyclopedia - that articles on complex topics be dismantled, left only with inchoate lists of facts. 172 05:57, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Everything's quiet on that page now, but it would be still helpful if you wrote a few comments to Gboy. After all, we must make sure that an active, capable new user reach his full capacity to write good articles, which is contingent on understanding the nature of an encyclopedia. 172 01:37, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Several weeks after I emailed them I have received this reply from FIFA which contradicts the response I got from the FA. Mintguy 06:37, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Dear Sir,
Thank you for enquiry.
Your understanding is correct. Should you wish to know more about the History of FIFA and football, we kindly invite you to consult our website : http://www.fifa.com/en/organisation/historyfifa.html
We trust this will be of use to you.
Best wishes,
FIFA Media Department
-----Original Message----- From: XXXXXXXX XXXXXX [7] Sent: 01 Oktober 2003 01:02
To: contact@fifa.org Subject: Association Football
Hello. I wonder if you could possibly answer the following question. Is the term "Association Football" ever used in any official capacity? Obviously the game is known throughout the world as simply "football" and as "soccer" in countries which have their own native code of football. And I know that soccer is an abbreviation of Association Football. It is my understanding that the term "Association Football" was used when the laws of the game were drawn up in 1863 to distinguish it from other codes, and that whilst it is still used in this capacity today, it does not have any official status, and that the official name of the sport (as used by the the FA, IFAB, FIFA and the IOC) is simply Football. Is it possible to please confirm this? Or otherwise confirm that this isn't the case.
Regards
XXXXXXXX XXXXXX

Mintguy 06:36, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have added the following to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Lirath Q. Pynnor

List of Prime Ministers[edit]

It is not uncommon to find sources which confuse the office of the secretary of state with that of the prime minister (or "first lord of the treasury"). For example, William Pitt (1st Earl of Chatham) is not infrequently stated to have become prime minister in 1757 (see: ISBN 0-321-09434-4 (Nash -- p.129) and ISBN 0-534-60008-5 (Spielvogel -- p.494)); however he became the Secretary of State in 1757, and the First Lord of the Treasury in 1766. Note, the office of prime minister didn't even technically exist, during the 18th Century; it was instead known as the office of the first lord of the treasury. (see: [[8]])

I adopted the following from your statement at the Talk Page:

Until 1905, the Prime Minister was not an official title; however, it was used unofficially to refer to a senior minister (usually either the First Lord, Lord Chancellor, Lord Privy Seal, or the Secretary of State) who had sufficient power to be known as being "premier among ministers". Lirath Q. Pynnor

Mother Teresa edit war[edit]

Look, James, we've been through this before. Edit wars won't solve conflicts, they will only aggravate the situation. I realize that MT enjoys an idol-like status among many people, and we should certainly try to be respectful towards these people by attributing all criticisms properly. I agree with Bryan that we should try to summarize the quotations, which would probably help in toning down some of the sharper criticisms of her person. But Jiang and Bryan agree that simply splitting away the negative parts about her won't accomplish your goal of making the article more neutral, in fact, it will have the exact opposite result.

This situation could have been avoided if you had voiced your opinion on the talk page before doing the revert-thing. As you should know from our little row over Pius XII recently it is quite possible to work together to achieve mutually acceptable results. But just making major structural changes without prior discussions is not going to do the trick. Getting it right takes time, but the result is almost always preferable.—Eloquence 22:18, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:Mother Teresa. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 23:36, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

JT, a bit of advice: doing the sorts of things that get others to accuse you of blind (or silent, or whatever... reverts without discussion) reverts is probably a Bad Thing and isn't liable to solve much. Since both you and Eloquence are normally sane and intelligent people, perhaps its time for both of you to step back and reflect that there isn't really a reason that two sane intelligent people should be having this big of a problem... Let's all be nice and friendly, OK?

P.S. Really, abusing his developer powers? Don't you think that's a bit much?

--Dante Alighieri 19:02, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Peace offer[edit]

James,

I have suggested that you routinely behaved like a bully. I have just looked through your recent edit history and have found little evidence for that. I remembered earlier episodes, especially with newbies, but it appears that the recent conflicts seem to have mostly been between the two of us. So, I apologize for unfairly characterizing you as a bully. I am therefore also willing to ascribe the recent unpleasantness and possible rashness in editing to heightened emotions for both of us. After earlier conflicts on VfD, Catholicism etc. we haven't exactly been in a mood of mutual understanding that is necessary for being cooperative. Add a nasty cold on my part on top of that and you have the ingredients for edit wars.

If you think about it, many of our conflicts concerned very minor issues, and our inability to reach consensus on these was probably mostly the result of the overall anger on both parts. You are angry because I called you a bully, talked about initiating a ban procedure against you, I am angry because you called me ignorant of Catholicism, a POV-crusader etc.

I would like to give another shot at cooperation on the Mother Teresa article, under the assumption that we both act in good faith and are not trying to insert POV into the article. I propose the following rules: We will both refrain from personal attacks, on the talk page, in edit coments or on other users' talk pages. Secondly, whenever there is a difference in opinion, there will at most be a single reversion to an earlier revision (and whenever there is a reversion, an explanation in the edit summary is required), and at that point the matter will be discussed on the talk page. Again, the discussion on the talk page will be purely neutral and factual. If no consensus can be reached on an individual point within 3 days, a vote can be started on that matter. In any case, no further reversions will take place until the matter is resolved. Compromises will be suggested on the talk page first. Being a little less bold may have its advantages.

As for the separation of individual sections, I reiterate my earlier offer: If the article gets too long, we can split away individual sections regardless of what's written in them. Otherwise it should stay in one piece.

Can you agree with this peace offer? In any case, I pledge that I will no longer bring up the ban issue provided that you try to refrain from attacks against me (I also will try to do the same, of course).

I know that we can work together, we've done it before. A little Albanian woman should not stand between us! ;-) —Eloquence 04:50, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)

Pronun Guides[edit]

The guy to talk to about that is User:Nohat - hes been on the ball as far as pooting in all kinds of SAMPA - but this was with the understanding that the SAMPA could be machine converted to either IPA or robot voice. The Taoiseach example (with an expnation of SAMPA to explain the SAMPA to describe the name pronu, is rather a bad example, and should be stopped, if people are getting carried away with that. CC:User:Nohat --戴&#30505sv 16:55, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

John Millington Synge[edit]

Hi, someone created a stub for John Millington Synge and I added some basic information, but he is an author I don't know much about. Perhaps you'd care to take a look? -- Viajero 16:38, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

First off, telling somebody that they must be wrong, simply on the grounds that I support them; that is not criticism, it does not qualify as criticism. Secondly, Adam has not made such "criticisms" just once, or even just five times, he has done so repeatedly. Thirdly, I have tried to address the issue with him. Thusly, I am left with little choice but to file a formal grievance; which I have done. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You stated, "take criticism like that with a pinch of salt."; such a statement indicates that Carr's "criticism" was somehow appropriate; however, it was not criticism. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Sometimes you percieve spite, where there is none. As long as you aren't trying to ban me; nor are you trying to revert my edits -- I really don't have anything to complain about. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Actually I don't know anything about Lirath's previous history at Wikipedia, although I have become aware that he has one. My only knowledge of him has come from the debates at the Talk:Jesus page, from which I have now withdrawn having concluded that it is impossible to reach consensus with someone who has no clue about what writing history, as opposed to theological propaganda, means. No doubt my way of expressing this was somewhat blunter than was polite, and if he has taken offence I apologise. But I maintain my view that he should not participate in writing about historical subjects until he learns something about historiography. Adam 04:40, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mother Theresa[edit]

Thank you for the invitation to vote on the Mother Theresa article but I would rather not get involved. The reason I was able to protect the page in the first place was because I had not been involved and had not expressed any opinion either way and I intend to keep it that way. I'm having edit wars over less contentious topics like the List of encyclopedias instead. :) (There's a vote going on there too by the way.) Angela 23:24, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I've been following the Mother Teresa stuff, although I haven't said anything about it...I have voted on the things I have an opinion about. (Interestingly, there is a new high school named after her near my house...) Adam Bishop 05:25, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for pointing me to the vote page! Pfortuny 08:29, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you sometimes use "lol" on Talk pages and on the mailing lists. For most people, the standard interpretation of that abbreviation on the internet is "Laughing Out Loud". It seems to me that you intend some other meaning, so that could create some misunderstandings. And since I'm at it: you also often say "Wiki" when you mean "Wikipedia"; normally it's clear what you mean, but "Wiki" or "Wikiwiki" is the name for the general technology underlying Wikipedia and similar editable sites. Cheers, AxelBoldt 00:03, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I thought lol was "lots of laughter"?

Adrian Pingstone 08:00, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

See [9] and [10]. AxelBoldt 09:41, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It is generally taken to mean either Lots of Love or Lots of Luck. FearÉIREANN 19:08, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, I always thought it meant "Lots of Love", but my children have been laughing at me when I've left them notes with that abbreviation, because they insist it means "Laughs out loud". Deb 19:42, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It means laugh out loud in telephone texting language, but a lot of things in texting language (sorry, txtng) mean different things to usage on the net. (Hell, are we developing different languages now, depending on the form of communication technology used?) LOL on the net usually means Lots of Love or Lots of Luck. :-) lol FearÉIREANN 20:26, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have always seen it used as "laugh out loud" on the Internet, and never "lots of love" or "luck". Maybe different abbreviations are used in different ways in various places in the world? Adam Bishop 20:28, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

AAAAAGH. Regional variations too. Talk about the Tower of Babel! :-) FearÉIREANN 20:49, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

AAAAAGH from me too Jtdirl. And sorry. I must confess to being the culprit in the Mormon talk page muckup a fewish minutes ago. I don't know how it happened. Moriori 23:10, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Bush family conspiracy theory nominated for deletion[edit]

Bush family conspiracy theory has been list on the votes for deletion page. I know you put a good deal of work into trying to NPOV that monster. --mav 08:35, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Problem users[edit]

I will take your excellent advice. -- Cyan 23:29, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Archived delete pages[edit]

I have just had to revert Talk:Prime Minister of the United States/Delete and Talk:Silesian language/Delete because they had been edited since the discussions were archived. The notice at the top was in bold and very clearly stated that any further comments were to go to the talk page. I can't see how this was missed really. Have you got any ideas on how to avoid this? Do you think there would be too many objections to automatically protecting such pages once they are archived? Angela 21:34, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

re Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

Hi JT, I have attempted to find language that both you and BoNoMoJo will consider neutral. I was a little surprised at your response to his post, because, well, he's kind of, um, entirely correct. Cheers, Cyan 23:43, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Works for me! -- Cyan 23:53, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The problem here was an ambiguity of the English language. The sentence reads/read, "Critics allege/claim [a bunch of stuff]", so it was clear to B that everything that followed the first two words was just an allegation; indeed, that is the way I read it myself. But there's nothing wrong with disclaiming each clause of the sentence to emphasize Wikipedia's non-involvement, provided it can be done in natural-sounding language. -- Cyan 00:16, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

/Delete pages[edit]

Thanks for the reply. Undemocratic cabals! Oh dear. :) Well, it's probably best to avoid those issues, so I'll try just adding the text at the bottom as well and see if that helps. I'm going to put any new ones I create on my watchlist so I can make sure they aren't being edited. I'll see how it goes. Angela

Second Industrial Revolution Lirath Q. Pynnor

MT[edit]

James,

There are now by my count three pages (Talk:Mother Teresa, Wikipedia:Village Pump and Wikipedia_Talk:Protected page) on which you take me to task for protecting Mother Teresa yesterday evening. Your displeasure with my action is now abundantly clear. Please note that I have already acknowledged that it was an error of judgement on Talk:Mother Teresa.

However, I would like to express my unhappiness with your statement that "I have been involved in the page for weeks." Indeed I did make some minor, non-controversial edits to the article in mid-October, but in no way, shape or form was I continuously involved in the article since then, as you insinuate. Furthermore, my efforts on the Talk page last night were not an attempt to justify Mother Teresa's critics, but simply to argue that discussion of the controversy surrounding her was not out of place in the article, something User:Alexandros continues to refuse to accept. At the time, I didn't think that stating on the Talk page this compromised my neutrality and made me ineligible to protect the page, but I now see that this was the case. I erred. But the more important issue was and remains that of a user refusing to abide by Wikipedia editing conventions. I wish no ill of Alexandros, but if you are so concerned with protocol, why aren't you chastising him repeatedly on these pages? I am not the problem.

In view of all this, I can't help but suspect your neutrality on the issue of Mother Teresa.

In closing, I hope that people show tolerance if ever you make an error of judgement here.

Viajero 19:22, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

thanks for the article on my talk page. I appreciate your support. Alexandros 01:21, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi.

Bit of context re: the George Smith (Royal servant) page.

I like the "republican" annotation for the throneout.com link but, FWIW, while the site is (or rather was: there's just that one page there now) republican ("the British Anti Monarchy and Republican site"), I'm not sure the article itself is. Or at least not significantly more than The Sunday Times and Sky News ;-)

There's a bit of a discussion about that link here.

Chocolateboy 21:15, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

UK / British[edit]

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that - I will stop fixing the links for a bit until we can clarify this - I am surpised that an encyclopedia would go with the 'most common name' rather than the correct one - are there other instances of this? I don't think United States of America should be listed as America simply because that is the most common name for it, or Netherlands listed as Holland just because a lot of people think that's what it's called - do you?2toise 23:52, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The most common name rule is the basic rule of wikipedia. You didn't know that? Oops. It is Rule Number 1 of wikipedia. Only where most common name is also 100% wrong (eg Holland) is it not used, or in specialist areas like royal titles. But elsewhere most common rule is all but sacrosanct. Hence United States in most of wikipedia, not United States of America, Bill Clinton not William Jefferson Clinton, etc. Also as the House of Commons is in as BHoC not UK HoC if you have been doing what you did on Irish Houses of Parliament elsewhere, you'd be strongly advised to be careful. Redirects have a habit of breaking down. One re-direct is risky (where possible they should go directly) but two redirects is suicidal, for they regularly break links all over the place. So never ever make double redirects and if possible remove single redirects. It is worth reading all the guidance on naming conventions before making major changes because clear policies are defined there. :-) FearÉIREANN 00:02, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

100% wrong? Surely the name is either correct or not? Holland is part of the Netherlands, Britain is part of the United Kingdom. The fact that people commonly mistake one for the other is surely not justification for what an encyclopedia calls it?

Re the redirects, I was slapped for moving the page without correcting the redirects, and then for fixing the redirects before moving the page - it seems the tactic is simply one to keep the incorrect name for the page.2toise 00:09, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi JTD. Finally got 2toise to accept the proper usage of British, phew! He set a pretty difficult target, trying to find a British government site that says "British House of Commons", since why would the British governmnet usually need to qualify the term? Thankfully the select committee on the modernisation of parliament mentioned it twice in three paragraphs in their report in Hansard! :) -- Arwel 01:24, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Re: Above argument, to echo Arwel. Bravo! I'm quite busy durign the week at the moment and can only pop into Wikipedia occasionally. Mintguy 09:32, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

A journalist has linked to your user page as an example of a Wikipedia user page from here: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1241/4 ("lists the contributions of registered users") --mav 18:49, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I know what you are talking about... I am not undervalueing your opinion but I prefer IN THIS CASE to keep my word (it is only a month) unless a lot of people would talk me into going back.

I am now sorry for having written what I wrote at MT's talk page (my withdrawal), but one should keep one's word especially if nobody asked one to speak.

I sincerely appreciate your compliments and thank you for them but I would need a lot of pressure to come back before 17th December. It is also a kind of self-teaching: Mother Teresa and her Order need not especially my help at the WP but other kind of help (prayer etc...). Also: let the other wikipedians build it up, I can do other things I like more...

Of course I am more than eager to answer any question in my talk page concerning Mother Teresa or the discussions at the talk page, if you or any find it useful.

Sorry for the bad news and best best wishes for your efforts to NPOV it. Pfortuny 20:48, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

VfD[edit]

"AIDS kills fags dead" and associated redirects were not deleted after being listed on VfD since 16 Nov: Martin decided to count votes only on Talk:AKFD/redirect. I'm assuming he will honour them there. If you still want to vote on the matter, you may want to make sure your votes are registered there. -- Someone else 19:28, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You missed voting in the last of the 9 separate tallies on that page, btw. Otherwise, I applaud you<G> -- Someone else 22:13, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dif[edit]

You win today's award for best dif. :) Angela 05:56, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Could you come on AIM as soon as you can?

PMA 09:31, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, It's me, ex-user Nevilley. Please may I use your nice pic of Xch Cathedral Dublin for a not-for-profit musical web page at: http://www.trumpetguild.org/news ? I mean I know it's copyright free etc but I thought it might be courteous to ask! Also you might want a photo credit or I could credit the wiki if that would suit you. I'll look here for a response, or you can see easily how to contact me through that web page. Thanks & good wishes, Neville

Of course you can Neville. Make as much use of it as you want. :-) FearÉIREANN 20:54, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's really great, thanks. Shall I credit the photo to you (wording?), Wikipedia, or not at all? Up to you. thanks again, Nev :)

Do you have an email a/c? I deliberately don't use my real name on wikipedia but can email it you. :-) FearÉIREANN 23:47, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yep go to the web page quoted above and mail the News Editor! :) Or just the word news followed by the at sign thingy ("the snail") followed by trumpetguild dot org. Thanks! Nev

Though the story is now up at http://www.trumpetguild.org/news/news03/119mahler5dublin.htm I can of course change the photo credit anytime you like, just shout using details above. Thanks v v much, Neville. :)

And I should have added - I won't be checking this file regularly, as I musn't get re-addicated to Wikipedia! :) - so do please mail me if you want to get in touch. Thanks again for the photo, best regards, Neville.

Powers of NI Assembly?[edit]

JTD, What are the level of devolved powers to the NI Assembly? I wanted to write about it in the Northern Ireland Assembly article, but I am not sure. When I say levels I am talking about the strength of those powers compared to Scotland (full law/full tax powers) and Wales (weak law/no tax powers). -- hoshie 07:54, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you're going to persist in moving Talk:Santorum from its logical position, fix the page history links. Martin 00:30, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Regarding Posh Spice's sex life, note that your second listing on VfD is a duplicate of the nomination in Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion. You might like to move your nomination to a vote there (in which case don't just copy mine over too, because I've voted in both places). Onebyone 03:19, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've moved your listing of Posh to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Martin 19:32, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good job making things clear with the HRH Princess Louise of Wessex/Lady Louise Windsor mess. The palace certainly hasn't done a very good job making this clear for anyone, but it's nice to see wikipedia explaining it all fairly clearly. john 03:46, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the support. Since he is a sysop, and i am not however, I am wary about fighting with him. I have been refused adminship because of the fact that I previously tried to stop Erik. I would rather not fight Erik, as the result of doing so, has been the fact that I have not been nominated or supported for sysop status, despite my history at Wikipedia and all my hard work. In addition, Erik and his followers have been using the example of a mistake I made with the Mother Teresa article, as an example of my supposed hot headedness, which is complete rubbish. I have never had any problems since that incident, yet they still mention it, and many others agree for fear of persecution themselves. Anyway, thanks again and good luck! Alexandros 19:52, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

>I'm afraid I accidentally reverted Mother Teresa before I realised it had been protected.

I guess that's a misfeature of the rollback button, but then that's only supposed to be used to revert vandalism. Are you aware the Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version states reverts should not occur more than three times in the same day?

>I think however it would have been better to have protected it to the version before Eloquence...

The only time I ever revert a page before protecting it is when I am re-protecting it following a sysop's edit that occurred whilst the page was protected. Fyodor Dostoevsky and Sunset High School for example.

>...text deleted weeks ago which he reinserted...

I don't care about the details. I protected the page at whichever version it happened to be on at the point in time when I got so annoyed at the constant reverts that I decided to take action against it. Protecting a page is never going to be fair to both parties. Without deleting it outright there really isn't a solution and I felt tempted to do exactly that when you and Eloquence continued to edit it while it was protected. Angela 23:40, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Brunswick/Braunschweig[edit]

Thanks for you comments on the Brunswick/Braunschweig debate. I agree that the goal is to use the most common name as used in English. I think the overwhelming evidence is now for Braunschweig, not for Brunswick, Germany. I just posted my findings on Talk:Brunswick. I left off my personal experience, but maybe it should also be included: In 3 years living in Germany, I never heard anyone use "Brunswick", even among the expat community which almost exclusively used anglicized names; in 13 years since, I've never personally heard anyone use Brunswick to refer to the german city. I'd appreciate your thoughts and counter-evidence if you have the chance. Rossami 03:56, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Irish election naming[edit]

With pages like Irish General Election, 1982 (Feb), wouldn't it be better to use the full month names, like Irish General Election, 1982 (February)? Or is there some policy that already exists on this? --Delirium 21:46, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

Mr N-H[edit]

Thanks for your help with Mr Natural Health. This morning I accidently left a message for him on his user page which you had protected -- I didn't notice it at the time! -- and just moved the message to his Talk page where it belonged, along with one of Muriel's, who did the same. All the best, -- Viajero 11:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, he deleted it from his Talk page 15 minutes later, so I put it back on his user page. It was pretty clear last night he was using anon IP to slander RK on Alternative medicine. -- Viajero 11:49, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

MT[edit]

Sure, no problem. I realize I'm liable to provoke another edit war, but the article is biased, so I really had to add the NPOV banner and begin to explain why — the pictures are perhaps the worst part of it now. The NPOV in the article itself is perhaps not as bad, but it's still a hatchet job, like many Wikipedia articles about political figures and institutions. By the way, I'm not Catholic, but that ideally shouldn't matter. Daniel Quinlan 00:26, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Hi. I did an article a while ago on the Pale of Settlement, referring to the area in which Russian Jews were permitted to live before the Revolution. I later found out that there was some kind of Irish parallel, but I know nothing about it. I was wondering if you could add some information to the article, or whether you think we should disambiguate. Danny 00:42, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As far as Mother Teresa goes, I remember reading through arguments over that more than a month ago, and thinking I didn't really want to get involved. I basically agree with you, but I'm not sure I have the time to fully follow this. I'm already involved in lots of irritatingness over at Talk:Silesia (check it out if you'd like - a Polish nationalist who vandalizes user pages has been making difficulties.) and should probably pick my battles. john 06:47, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi James. If you were inviting me to comment on an article, that would be fine, but what you're actually asking me to do is put myself in Eloquence's line of fire! Commenting on the Mother Teresa article would be like asking for personal attacks to be made against me, which, surprisingly enough, really isn't something I want to do. I saw what happened to Daniel [11] and don't wish to put myself up against such attacks. I doubt there isn't I could say which would not lead to Eloquence feeling the need to criticise me, so I intend to stay firmly out of the argument. Sorry I can't be of any help. Angela . 17:58, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For the sake of "future quoting" (things like "you said you were going to be away one month and now..." etc...), I am refraining from MT till December 17. I am sorry not to be helping you there... :( I'll be back then, although I may not behave as before, we'll see. Thanks anyway for your efforts. Keep collecting Erik's quotes, they will come in quite handy afterwards. Pfortuny 22:01, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Since you're never shy about asking me to give input on stuff, I thought I'd see if you wanted to vote over at Talk:Silesia, where I've proposed a vote over various issues in the article as it currently stands, in the (probably vain) hope of coming to some kind of consensus. Thanks! john 22:22, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

your assistance, please[edit]

Jtdirl, you have been involved in lots of controversial articles. Perhaps you can contribute something to the meta page I just started: Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. Thanks. -- Viajero 15:54, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

re:MNH[edit]

Thanks for your post to WikiEN on MNH -- a good and needed reminder for the list. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 03:21, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mansion House[edit]

My apologies, but can you explain why you didn't simply revert my change? You seem to have deleted the image text making it impossible for me to restore yours, now. I am no 'idiot', but careless, but don't see how sulking helps. Morwen 20:31, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Why should all dates be links?[edit]

Why do you think that all dates in an article should be links? Other people agree, but I have yet to see any reasoning.

—Noldoaran (Talk) 23:19, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

In addition the preferences give the option of showing dates in the international dd/mm/yy or the US mm/dd/yy format. If people express a preference, all linked dates will be shown in their preferred form. For that to work all dates must be linked, and all years are linked as Angela says to allow people to link with a page containing events from that year. So it is crucial for all dates to be linked, preferable if all years are also. FearÉIREANN 23:31, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I prefer the yyyy-mm-dd format because this way dates can be easily sorted, because the least significant part is on the right, like normal numbers. Thanks for your quick responce. —Noldoaran (Talk) 23:39, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Re: Lower Silesia (Prussian province). You did not revert to the "protected" page. My version was the protected one. Please revert back to that version immediately. It's highly inappropriate to revert a protected page to a vandalized version. Nico 01:13, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Btw, you are wrong. I am NOT a sysop. Nico 01:28, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I wondered who you were accusing of abusing their sysop powers as I was the only sysop ever to have edited that article. I was worried for a moment there. :) Angela . 01:34, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nico is, indeed, not a sysop. I ran an SQL, and his privs are the empty string. He edited the article the minute before you protected it (presumably after you last looked at its history). Pakaran 02:26, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Since you put in a lot of time to Irish articles, I thought to direct your attention to my comments in Talk:Lists of incumbents. Essentially, I made a new article which listed Chief Secretaries for Ireland. On seeking to add a link to the lists of incumbents page, I realized that there's no appropriate place there for it, since the Ireland entry is for the Republic of Ireland, only. The only articles linked from there are to Presidents and Prime Ministers. I would think that Ireland ought to be listed in a way so that lists of British/Irish officials from the period before 1922 can be conveniently listed on the lists of incumbents page. Currently, for instance, the Lord Lieutenants are not listed on the lists of incumbents page. Neither are Governors-General of the Irish Free State, although I'm not sure there's a specific list page for them, only the main Irish Free State page. Anyway, I wasn't sure how this should best be managed. Do you have any thoughts? john 03:05, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, the problem was maybe not that the anonymous user's edit was POV, but that it was bad and poorly written, and that I felt I in any event should revert his edits because this person is following after me just to cause trouble. Nico 03:55, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why just because I added the current names of the regions its poorly written? I admit there is text repeating at the bottom but you put it there not me. And in order to not delete your fancy flags I just edited the first paragraph. 24.2.152.139 06:14, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, that should definitely help. BTW, there's already a list of Lord Lieutenants since 1600 at Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. But a much more detailed list could probably be made (with my trusty copy of the Handbook of British Chronology), for which the non-existent list page you linked to on lists of incumbents might be useful...By the way, do you know what the exact title of the Chief Secretary was? It would seem as though the long form was "Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland", but I'm not sure what the short form should be. Would it be "Chief Secretary for Ireland", "Chief Secretary in Ireland", "Chief Secretary of Ireland"? I feel like I've usually seen the first. Handbook of British Chronology uses the second... john 04:27, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You may be up at 5, and I may well still be up at 5, but here in Pennsylvania it's only just after midnight...:) john 05:25, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your mail. I'm not decided yet, what to do now. I will contact you in January. Anyway: Merry Christmas -- Caius2ga 23:55, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Current Events[edit]

The Alex Ferguson "story" doesn't have a link (try Googling for it). That's why it tries to put the whole allegation into the item.

The ghost story tries to put the whole incredibly important story into the item.

What relevance do Karl's friends and family have to this: "The Holy See announces plans to beatify the last Austro-Hungarian emperor Karl"?

chocolateboy 05:53, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I refer you to my comments on Talk:Connacht. While perhaps the case isn't clear-cut as to whether or not Connaught or Connacht is where the article should be, I do think that the article as is is far too dismissive of the spelling "Connaught," which continues to be widely used (for instance in my Rand McNally atlas, which just writes "Connaught", while at the same time, for instance, writing the Erse name of Dublin). I imagine this is mostly outside Ireland, but I'm not sure what that means. Since Ireland is a bilingual country, it might be argued that "Connaught" is the proper English name, and that Connacht is the Irish name which has partially supplanted it in Ireland itself. At any rate, it's probably fine if the article stays at Connacht, but I think that it should be less dismissive of the other spelling, which remains fairly common. john 09:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just wanted to send you my Christmas Greetings. Best. Pfortuny 20:02, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How are you doing with the Irish smoking ban? It sounds rough. 172 22:53, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Take advantage of the ban and quit. You'll be glad you did. Lirath Q. Pynnor

We're voting on peer naming conventions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage, if you want to participate. john 06:28, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you about Sir Alec. Definitely, he ought to be described as a British politician. To suggest that he is a Scottish politician would perhaps imply that his work was mostly related to Scotland. The fact that he was from Scotland could be addressed later in the page. -- Emsworth

As I noted over at Lord Emsworth's, where I encountered an edit conflict from your post, the "British politician" makes more sense. But what about people like Edward Carson or John Redmond? They too, were Westminster politicians...and what also about someone like David Steel, who has participated in both Scottish and Westminster politics? john 20:17, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and what about people who are of a different nationality from the country in which they are active? I'm struggling to think of an example, but could an English or Scottish person who had only ever been politically active in the Welsh assembly reasonably be described as a "Welsh politician" - or do you mean that all UK politicians should be described as "British", regardless of where they come from? I don't mind that so much, only I thought that the biography standard was for the opening sentence to refer to the nationality of the subject. Deb 20:31, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Maybe the way is to separate the place of origin from the word 'politician'. In the UK, the trouble is, what is nationality? Is Scotland a nation? Is the UK a nation? Most countries have clear constitutional distinctions between regions, states, nations, federations, confederations, etc. The UK blurs them. Saying Scottish politician is open to two interpretations unless qualified to indicate whether they are a Holyrood-based politician or a Westminster-based politician. People today, particularly if supporters of Scottish home rule, are liable to presume that Scottish politician means part of Scotland's governmental system. Alec Douglas-Home certainly could not be described as a Scottish politician in the same way as a member of the Scottish parliament. He wasn't even born in Scotland. So it is highly questionable to call ADH a Scottish politician. FearÉIREANN 22:06, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly agree on the Douglas-Home issue. I'm just wondering about the question of devising a rule for that kind of thing in general. (For Douglas-Home, in addition to being a Westminster politician, he seems also to have had very little connection to Scotland at all - born in London, went to Eton and Oxford, and then to parliament. Was he an MP for a constituency in England or Scotland? john 22:39, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Note: I have moved Edmund Fitzalan-Howard, Viscount Fitzalan to Edmund Fitzalan-Howard, 1st Viscount Fitzalan, as the title was hereditary. -- Emsworth

I have redirected the links to Edmund Fitzalan-Howard, 1st Viscount Fitzalan of Derwent, the full title garryq 13:43, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you seem to have disappeared from Wikipedia, perhpas you're on holiday, or maybe you've gone cold turkey! When/if you're you're back, the article you wrote for Ian Keith Malone has been proposed for deletion, I'm about to go and oppose its deletion but I thought as the original author you'd like to know. Regards -- Ams80 19:22, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey, if you're about, I was wondering if you had any info as to the names of the later Lord Chancellors of Ireland. My source only goes up to about 1890, so I'm at a lost for the last several. Any help appreciated. john 19:23, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zero-byte image[edit]

Hello; I just deleted two images you uploaded back in Jly 2003, because they were zero bytes. They were Image:Ardbraccanchurch.jpg, which had the caption Ardbraccan Church, Co. Meath, Republic of Ireland, and File:Ardbraccantower.jpg, which had the caption Ardbraccan Church tower, Co. Meath, Republic of Ireland. It's quite possible you already re-uploaded them or know about the upload error, but I thought I'd let you know just in case. --Delirium 09:38, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Bibliography on the IRA?[edit]

Hiya. I was wondering...could you recommend any useful "books for beginners" covering the IRA and Sinn Fein in its various guises/mutations/offshoots? -Penta 02:49, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Irish Houses of Parliament[edit]

Hi, I have a question about a part of Irish Houses of Parliament. By the way, do you know it's just become a featured article? :)

Sessions of Parliament drew many of the wealthiest of Ireland's Anglo-Irish elite to Dublin, particularly as sessions often coincided with the Social Season, (January to 17 March) when the Lord Lieutenant presided in state over state balls and drawing rooms in the Viceregal Apartments in Dublin Castle. Leading peers in particular flocked to Dublin, where they lived in enormous and richly decorated mansions initially on the northside of Dublin, later in new georgian residences around Merrion Square and Fitzwilliam Square. Their presence in Dublin, along with large numbers of servants, provided a regular boost to the city economy.

I always thought that this was the other way around. That the Social Season only existed because it was created by all the entertainments put on by peers and their families, and for their benefit, when the house was in session. The above seems to imply it was a happy coindidence. Though, I'm not at all familiar with the Dublin Season, I only know about the London one. Also, did it really have rigid dates like that? The London Season was much more fluid. Cheers, fabiform | talk 14:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC).

Merged British and Irish parliaments[edit]

I've asked this on the Reference desk, but I thought you might have this info to hand. On what date did the combined British and Irish parliaments first meet after the 1801 Act of Union? Was an election called in Ireland or did the members of the Irish House simply relocate to Westminster? Cheers. Mintguy (T) 20:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Irish Breakfast[edit]

I'd be interested in your contribution to the debate over the inclusion and content of the article Irish Breakfast. User:Jooler insists it is the same as English breakfast or similar enough not to be permitted its own page. He has listed it on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, in addition to heavily editing the article to his POV. Follow this link to see the original unedited text.

It's a pretty nonsensical debate, but of some annoyance nonetheless. But perhaps you may not be interested. You can always just leave a note on my talk page.

Zoney 23:18, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)