User talk:AJD

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Robdurbar 08:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Image copyright problem with Image:Jack_Cunningham.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jack_Cunningham.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jamie_Reed.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jamie_Reed.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, did you get permission to use this pic on Wikipedia only, or did they specifically agree to release the pic under a Creative Commons Share Alike, derivatives license? If they only specifically agreed to the former it should be tagged as permission to use on Wikipedia only isn't accepted as all material must be availiable to be exploited commercially. Arniep 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Messy edit?
Re: Jack Cunningham: why is removing unnecessary postnominal letters and reverting an image caption to the standard font weight a "messy edit"?


 * Image captions do not need to be in bold. If they did, it would be part of the template.
 * We don't use postnominal letters for qualifications. PhD isn't so out of the ordinary, and if we include that we would have to include all honorary degrees. Some people have those numbering in double figures, so that would be messy!
 * The other postnominal letters are given in the opening line of the article, so don't really need to be repearted here (although I would be prepared to compromise on that).
 * The prefix is always "The Rt Hon.". In addition, a substantive peer is always "The Lord..." To anyone in the know, at present it just looks... messy.

All of these are conventions used in other articles, so as it stands the article is inconsistent with others.  J Rawle  (Talk) 16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear, me. As someone else "in the know", the image caption uses the style, (if not the typesetting), employed by Cunningham, himself.
 * Cunningham has used these three sets of post-nominal letters since being ennobled. This is the only place in the article where his name is displayed as he'd wish.
 * His PhD isn't honorary; he's always used Dr., a title, as anyone in the know would know, that isn't employed by a peer. Hence, the lettering.
 * The use of the definite article and the full stop are not de jure, though possibly de rigueur. The article can be dropped in modern typography for aesthetic reasons: avoiding repetition and reducing clutter, the use of 'The' twice in this title being understood.  Short forms can be employed where it doesn't produce misunderstanding, e.g., in the display of dates.  Today's date can be expressed thus 5 September 2006 or in full, the fifth day of September in the twenty-hundred and sixth year of Our Lord.  I will grant you that the full title is The Right Honourable and he is a substantive peer. However, it is not necessary to use either in full, especially if it is the convention of the holder.
 * And finally, if you are going to use a full stop to indicate an abbreviation, at least use it consistently, e.g., Rt.Hon. and Ph.D., and not Rt Hon.
 * Right on? AJD 18:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the caption is "incorrect" in the wider sense. It's just not the way it's done in other articles on Wikipedia. I don't know if it's really the style "employed by Cunningham, himself", but there are life peers who would write their names as "Lord John Smith", which is incorrect, so it's not always best to copy the way they do it (which, of course, is usually written by minions and not by the person in question anyway).


 * I'll leave the definite articles out, although I can't guarantee certain other editors won't add them if they happen to look at the article. As for full stops, I'm not a fan of them myself. However, the convention in British English, if full stops are used, is that they are only used where a word is truncated, not where it's contracted so that the final letter stays the same. Hence "Rt Hon." not "Rt. Hon." This is why "Mr." and "Dr." are Americanisms.


 * I know his PhD is not an honorary degree. Honorary doctorates such as DSc, LLD, etc. are actually higher degrees than PhD. So if you include PhD, you will need 7 or 8 sets of letters for some people's honorary degrees. We really don't include academic degrees as postnominals on Wikipedia.


 * So I'll remove the bold font and PhD from the image caption. I'll leave the rest for other editors to consider in the future.  J Rawle  (Talk) 22:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yawn* Ok, you do that. I'll add his style to the article.


 * Wikipedia will be the worse if it remains a pedants' corner. Saying that something is "just not the way it's done in other articles" stifles enlightenment. However, even a cursory glance through articles on life peers reveals a multitude of styles.  Move to other individuals and you'll find that most have fashioned their own identity: Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner is known as Sting; Anthony Charles Lynton Blair is known as Tony Blair.  These are not the only styles by which they're known, but they're the ones they want us to use.  I know life peers who do insist on the use of their given name.  And I ask why not?  We shouldn't be dictating the form of people's identities.  Would you change the entry for every woman who has not taken her husband's surname?


 * AJD 07:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought Wikipedia is one place where pedantry is a virtue. There have to be guidelines for articles to be consistent.

For names, there are clear guidelines. See here. The article title should be the name the person is commonly known as, e.g. Tony Blair. The opening line, in bold, is the person's full name, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. We used to add "The Right Honourable" to the start of articles, but after discussion is was agreed not to do this. You could now come along and insist on adding this to the start of Jack Cunningham's article, just as you insist on including PhD, but it would go against the consensus reached by other editors. If, on the other hand, you strongly believe PhD should be included if someone always uses it, please discuss it on the relevant talk page. Maybe people will think it's a good idea, and the policy will change. Wikipedia isn't static. Guidelines and policies change and evolve. But individual editors can't just change them unilaterally.

In England and Wales, people can change their name to whatever the like. There's no need to sign a Change of Name Deed. The new name becomes their legal name, so should be the one used in Wikipedia articles (with their birth name noted separately, as per the Manual of Style). Women can take their husband's name on marriage or not, the article should reflect this. I'm not sure which way round your asking "would I change it", but I'd only change an article if it wasn't the name the lady in question used after marriage (it's actually not always easy to determine which name women prefer, but we should do our best).

From the laws surrounding personal names, you could change your name and call yourself "Lord John Doe" if you liked. It wouldn't make you a peer. Equally, Jack Cunningham could call himself Lord Jack Cunningham, but that's the same as being "Dr L. J. Cunningham". Being a peer is quite different. The title is created by the Queen by Letters Patent. Unlike a name, it can't be changed on a whim. So although Lord Cunnnigham of Felling is just as entitled to call himself "Lord Jack Cunningham" as you are to call yourself "Lord John Doe", that doesn't make it a title of peerage. If he simply prefers to be known as Jack Cunningham rather than Lord Cunningham of Felling, that's another matter – one's his name, the other's his title – and is reflected in this page being as simply Jack Cunningham. (Note that I'm not saying he ever calls himself Lord Jack Cunningham as he probably doesn't, it's just an example.)

That's a bit of a sidetrack. The Jack Cunningham does already say he has a PhD in the appropriate place. I can sort of see what you are getting at, though: he was always "Dr..." before his enoblement, so now use of Dr is awkward, he's "... PhD". So why not explain that in the text?  J Rawle  (Talk) 16:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, JRawle: you read, but you don't appear to comprehend. I am aware of what you have pontificated on, and, indeed, have corrected edits to follow conventions when they've been pointed out to aid understanding and knowledge.  I have also accepted the changes that have been made in the relevant article. I have even learned something.  My beef is that you appear to have set yourself to be the arbiter of how someone should be identified.  Yes, Letters Patent bestows the new title upon the individual, and that title should be in the Wikipedia article.  However, you should allow the common name/style, as well.


 * My rhetorical question about a woman's right to choose how they are known, I thought, was self-explanatory. You can't stick to a convention when modern usage has changed. Another example is the phasing out of the social rank Esquire. Or is it your intention and Wiki-mission to correct every eligible entry to reflect this outdated title?  Actually, you needn't answer that.


 * AJD 17:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's up to all editors to correct articles that contain errors, and you seem to be doing that yourself, so that's good. I actually agree with almost all the examples that you give, and with the fact that we should use people's preferred names in articles. (Don't you think Esquire is silly? Most people aren't entitled to it anyway, despite what banks might think!)


 * One exception would be where peers use the form "Lord/Baroness Forename Surname" which is obviously incorrect – I can think of one female life peer who does that, yet even her party, the Lib Dems (hardly the most traditional lot) don't list her as that on their website. And the House of Lords certainly doesn't. But this is an aside, and was never really the issue with this article.


 * You say Cuningham always styles himself "Rt Hon Lord Cunningham of Felling, PC DL PhD", yet I don't believe that. You mean whenever he signs his name it's Rt Hon Lord Cunningham of Felling, PC DL PhD. He books a table at a restaurant, it's "for Rt Hon Lord Cunningham of Felling, PC DL PhD". He introduces himself, it's "I'm Rt Hon Lord Cunningham of Felling, PC DL PhD, pleased to meet you." Of course not! Each place will call him something different. Each reference on the web is slightly different. Different postnominals will be included. He may or may not use Rt Hon. The typesetting (regarding full stops, commas, etc.) will be different. So which form do we choose for Wikipedia? Different forms are appropriate for different occasions. So on Wikipedia we use the Wikipedia form.


 * Anyway, if Wikipedia policy was not to use his preferred name, this article would be at John Cunningham (UK politician)!  J Rawle  (Talk) 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So-called irresponsible edits
The words I deleted were clearly POV. The discussion on the talk page shows you drawing an inference, but it is not up to us to do that. If someone else calls them "totalitarian" we can cite it.

Here's some more advice: It is uncivil and bordering on a personal attack to accuse an established good-faith editor (or a newbie if it come to that) of being "irresponsible" in editing. I am warning you to remain civil at all times in your edit summaries and elsewhere. Incivility to others inherently disrupts the collegial activity of editors on the encyclopedia by turning the focus to emotions and personal conflicts rather than to the merits of the content. If you make a habit of addressing fellow Wikipedians in an uncivil manner you can be seen as disruptive and blocked from editing here. I won't block you in this case because it is a first offence, and besides I am not going to block someone with whom I'm in an edit conflict. However, you don't want to get a reputation as someone who lacks civility. In this case, just take it as a heads-up. Metamagician3000 15:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Where do I begin? 1. The words you removed have been crafted over some time by many more editors than just yourself. They are explained and documented as pointed out; they are not POV. 2. As to the use of "irresponsible". How would you describe an action of removing something without first checking the history and discussions that have taken place, nor even contributing to the discussion? This article has been cut many times in the past, usually anonymously and without any explanation.  If I caused offence, I apologise. However, I would like people to show more consideration for what has gone on before, hence, my summary. 3. I consider it an abuse to invoke blocking for a summary judgement on a perceived offence, without making any preliminary enquiries. I understand that you're an administrator, looking to maintain the integrity of the project.  Yet, if I may be so bold as to proffer some advice: I don't think that making threats is an action likely to engender a collegiate environment. AJD 15:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

HuT
I looked at your talkpage and saw that the last comment was on 11 October 2006 and I almost assumed you had stopped editing, but then I checked your contributions. I cant believe I overlooked your comment on Talk:Hizb ut-Tahrir. I can use all the help I can get in dealing with HT apologists, if you have the time. If there is any question about HT's intentions, see this news link. A Singaporean Muslim expert on terrorism says it promotes "attacking the United States." KazakhPol 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I haven't been able to do much of late. I've been caught up with other things.  I will try to do some more on this article.  I don't want it to be taken over by the diehards.  AJD 00:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Czech Republic
We are estabilishing WikiProject Czech Republic, maybe you would like to participate, please see |this and vote for support.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 10:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New Wine Discussion (by Agne) : Input Requested
Dear WikiProject_Wine member:

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine that has become
 * Wikipedia is not a wine guide

Please add your comments/input to the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_wine_guide.

Thanks! Regards -- Steve.Moulding 19:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Czech Wikipedian's notice board
You are invited to join Czech Wikipedian's notice board! The Czech notice board can be used for discussions on Czech-related topics; to plan your Czech-related projects; and ask for, or offer assistance for Czech-related subjects. Editors are encouraged to sign their nickname on the list of active participators. --Thus Spake Anittas 02:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Jamie_Reed.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jamie_Reed.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 22:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wine Project Newsletter
Apologies to everyone for this notification being sent out so late, events in real life prevented me from distributing it at the time, and the Wine Project's had a bit of a lull during the Northern Hemsiphere summer. But as the nights draw in, activity should pick up again, and hopefully the next Newsletter will arrive a little more quickly....

The next few weeks are the perfect time to take photos of grapes in the Northern Hemisphere - get your cameras out! FlagSteward 15:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wine Project activity'
This is a friendly note to let you know that you have been moved to the Inactive members page of the Wine Project. Users are moved to this page when two months have passed without any Wikipedia activity or 3 months have passed without any contribution to a wine related article. The intent of the Participant list is to function as a resource for other editors wishing to get in contact with wine project members for comments or question on Wikipedia's wine article. The goal of this process is to try and maintain the WikiProject Wine/Participants as current and up to date as possible with active and contributing members. Please note that this is not intended to be a negative reflection on your Wikipedia or wine related contribution and it is well known that sometimes outside life can take editors away from Wikipedia for some time. You will always be welcomed to rejoined the Wine Project should you feel that the time is right. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk or on the Wine Project talk page. Best wishes. AgneCheese/Wine 19:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello AJD! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Carole Tongue -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay
Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics.  Schwede 66  09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)