User talk:Jdforrester/Old Archive 3

This is an archive of my talk page, the current version of which is located here.

Note that I am likely to reformat, delete, or otherwise alter what appears here...

= *Please* put Arbitration matters here =

Re: "arbitration/Rex071404"
Please take note, yesterday, I posted my version of the facts on this issue as per the page's instructions: "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence."

However, tonight, Neutrality has twice deleted my statement from that page and instead moved it to the "discussion" page.

I am trying my best to defuse the tense dynamic between Neutrality an myself, but I am at a loss as to what to do.

For example, Neutrality is again jumping all over my edits on John Kerry and deleted/reversed me me multiple times tonight wihtout discussion. I have left copious notes on that talk page explaining my edits, but Neutrality dos not dialog with me.

I really would appreciate some guidedance on getting Neutrality to give me some breathing room.

Also, please take note, although I am feeling very pressed againg by Neutrality, I am not reverting to my intial method of snide commentary.

Since Snowspinner chastized me several days ago with a 24hr ban, I have reconsidered and am avoiding harsh statements. That being the case, when can I expect Neutrality to be advised to leave me be and not be so agressive to me? Rex071404 01:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please re-consider Re: Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404
On the advice of Mbecker, I am voluntarily abstaining from any John Kerry edits for several days. Also, I have added substaintial information to my section of the evidence page, please review that.  Also, please take note that my principal accuser Neutrality has also been involved in aggresive revert activities at George_W._Bush and yet, though I have also begun to edit George_W._Bush, I have not been involved in acrimonious debates on that talk page nor any reverts there at all. There is no tactful way to say this, but if you look at the state the John Kerry page was before I arrived, I think you'd agree that this entrenched group of editors who is after me (principally JamesMLane and Neutrality) had a very heavy pro-Kerry bias on that page. I truly do want to avoid being kicked out and to that end, have several times asked my principal accuser Neutrality to dialog with me on my talk page and I also requested mediation with him. He declined both. Rex071404 07:35, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Temporary injunction concerning Rex071404
In the proposed decision concerning this user, you supported a broad temporary ban. Since then, other ArbCom members have voted in favor of a temporary ban that would apply only to three articles. As one of the users aggrieved by Rex's conduct, I would like to see that second temporary order approved as soon as possible, and it seems logically included within the one you supported, so I hope you will return to the page and vote Yea on the alternative proposed order. JamesMLane 19:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question about "Lyndon LaRouche"
Dear Arbitration Committee:

I have read the following:


 * === Remedies===
 * 1) Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions


 * 3) User:Adam Carr is banned for one day for making a personal attack.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions


 * 4) Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions


 * ===Enforcement ===
 * 1) Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions


 * 3) If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

I have attempted twice to restore this passage to the article:


 * Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has tried to clear LaRouche's name, arguing that investigators and political opponents had abused the legal process to eliminate him. Clark wrote in 1995, in a letter to then serving Attorney General Janet Reno: "I bring this matter to you directly, because I believe it involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge."[http:// larouchein2004.net/ exoneration/ clarkletter.htm]


 * In the early 1990s, while LaRouche was in prison, full page advertisements, calling for LaRouche to be exonerated, appeared in papers such as the New York Times and Washington Post. Among the signators were heads of state and cabinet-level officials from around the world, including Arturo Frondizi, former President of Argentina; leaders of the American Civil Rights Movement, including Amelia Boynton Robinson (the heroine of Bloody Sunday) and Rosa Parks; former Minnesota Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate Eugene McCarthy; and prominent artists, such as violinist Norbert Brainin, former primarius of the Amadeus Quartet.


 * It is interesting, and perhaps puzzling, that these individuals came to the defense of a man who has been so universally condemned in the press throughout the English-speaking world.

It had been reverted by administrator Guanaco. When I replaced it he reverted it again, with the explanation that it was forbidden by the AC ruling. I put it back in, saying that I had read the AC ruling. Then it was reverted by administrator AndyL. Could you please explain how the ruling forbids this? The section is certainly factual and I think it makes the article more neutral. Weed Harper 14:17, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche case ruling - some tweaks to enforcement #4
Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision - I've modified enforcement #4 in light of Fred's clarification - principally that we're giving admins the ability to decide the matter. You might want to change your vote? Martin 19:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo case
Note:Jimbo Wales is not the Queen of England. And harassing people by email is not acceptable. Xed 14:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404 case
here 20:08, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, you've voted in support of a fact of finding in the Rex case that several of us have raised serious concerns about, and believe was unjustified. I'd appreciate a response on the appropriate talk page. Ambi 23:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

IRC Banning
JamesF, I've been banned from the #wikipedia IRC channel by Snowspinner, for what he considers "personal attacks" against him.

I don't feel I did make any personal attack, nor am I aware that banning from IRC for "personal attacks" is supported by policy (but with so many policies, perhaps it is and I've missed it). And in any case, I think it contravenes policy for Snowspinner to take action in a dispute to which he is a party to.

In what way do I contest the banning, and Snowspinner's banning for a dispute he is party to?

A log of the conversation leading up to the ban is given at User:Orthogonal/IRC ban by Snowspinner.

Thanks. -- orthogonal 04:58, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Sorry you're getting dragged into this. The short form is that orthogonal has been harassing me in IRC for about a month. Today, in the name of "parody" he changed his nick to Sn0wsinner and proceeded to make a few comments at my expense. Though this was in the context of parody, with other users imitating Jimbo and Larry, between the nick and the fact that orthogonal's feelings towards me have been made clear in the past, I was not amused. I told orthogonal to stop when I got back to the channel and found that. He decided to push the issue and troll me. I banned him.
 * That said, IRC's not your department, so I doubt you're worying about it that much. Fennec has indicated that he backs me on it, noting that he wanted to ban him himself. But I figured I'd at least explain, since this got dumped on your talk page. Snowspinner 06:14, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hey-o. Read the text you left on my page; sorry to hear that your disagreement has come to this level, but IRC is beyond the scope of the Arbitration Committee, and I am only an "empowered-user" on the Arbitration-specific IRC channel, not on #wikipedia generally.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 14:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me so soon, and sorry to take so long to thank you. :) -- orthogonal 02:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

= Other discussion elements =

Paxman interview with Michael Howard
elements cross-posted

Hi JD. I spotted your reversion on the Michael Howard article and looked to see what it was that was being reverted. In fact the anonymous contributor is correct. Paxman's famed piece with Howard was a bit of theatre because he had been informed as he asked the question - the last question he had as the interview was 40 seconds from the end - through his earpiece that the next segment wasn't ready and was told "keep talking." People in the media often have this experience. Sometimes a newscaster can be delivering a script about a film report even as the report is still being edited, with people screaming "stall. Keep talking. It'll be ready in a minute" in their earpiece. (I've seen it in studio once. The presenter had to ad-lib one and a half minutes in a news bulletin, remembering something he had read about in a newspaper while a panicked production office tried desparately to get the next report ready. When the presenter came off set he punched the editor who had screwed up the report, screaming obscenities at him for leaving him making up news for a minute in front of 10 million people!)

Anyway, that is what happened with Howard. I personally have no time for Howard, but that segment was grossly unfair to him. The BBC presented it as an example of tough questioning but it was nothing of the sort. It is simply a presenter stalling for time after yet another Newsnight screw-up by theatrically the same question over and over again of a politician who had made it clear the first time he would not answer; whether it was that he did not want to, or had been advised by the Home Office that in view of a suspected impending court action he could not answer it, is still debated. But Howard just had the bad luck to be in a studio with a presenter who had run out of questions and had time to fill, and who instead of asking more questions staged a gimmicky repeating of the same question. (BTW Paxman himself is embarrassed over it in retrospect and has openly admitted that it was a 'fun filler' to stall for a few minutes, not real tough journalism.) I'll re-instate in a reworded form the bit added in by the anonymous contributor. FearÉIREANN 18:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Heya James,
 * Umm... I don't quite understand what you said on my talk page &mdash; I was reverting the edits of an anonymous editor who was removing the comment about the interview's theatre being rather... accidental. I, too, am somewhat averse to Howard's political stance, but I felt that removing the caveat was somewhat POV. I rather like your rewording, however.
 * James F. (talk) 23:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Infobox changes
elements cross-posted

Something about your changes broke the stacked infoboxs in Winston Churchill. I reverted to the last stable versions, until we can figure out what happened. -- Netoholic 19:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * ... on Winston Churchill? Are you sure? That was the page I was using as a benchmark. What was the problem?
 * James F. (talk) 20:01, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The text near where the BPM infobox was rendered was pushed over. It seemed that the area around the box had an extremely large left margin. I don't see in the code why that happened, but it did. Wierd interaction with the "Table of Contents", maybe? -- Netoholic 20:05, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, that. Yes, that's your fault - the br-tags with "clear="all"' on them. :-) Will fix.
 * James F. (talk) 20:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Where do you see BR tags with clear=all? -- Netoholic 20:32, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * s/br-tags with/CSS styles/
 * It's been a long editing session.
 * 20:44, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The current version (with 1em right margin) shows on my screen about 1 inch wide from the right. Set to 0em, it shows a very slight margin, aligned with all the other elements of the page section. What browser/skin do you use? The printed version also shows an exceptionally wide margin, wasting space and pushing the text over unnecessarily. -- Netoholic 21:41, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Monobook and Classic, on Mozilla and Opera, on Windows and Mac OS X.
 * What broken browser are you using? ;-)
 * James F. (talk) 21:57, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I always test web work on the latest IE 6, since it currently is used by something like 70% of web users. Feel free to take a screen shot and post it, but I think your margins may not be typical. In any case, printing is affected by the extra margins, which is a bigger concern. -- Netoholic 22:04, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Foundation website
Sorry, but wikimediafoundation.org is the right one :-) wikimedia.org will be a redirect :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

47 Ronin
Did you look on the Talk:47 Ronin page, with the statistics I carefully gathered from Google, before I selected the page name? '47 Ronin' is the most common form of the name, which is why that's what I had it under. If you want to disregard this, can you point me to the Wikipedia policy page which says that you shouldn't use the most common form of a name in this circumstance? Thanks. Noel 03:37, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I made the move over 4 months ago at the specific behest of another user; FWICR, I glanced at the talk: page, and didn't find any show-stoppers, so went ahead.
 * In general, we use "most common name", yes, but we also have rules about spelling out numbers when they start a sentence, and here these would be opposed. You yourself said that you would have prefered to locate the article were it is now, indeed.
 * However, given the way I moved the page, it's perfectly possible for you (or any user, indeed) to move it back.
 * James F. (talk) 13:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Saint Peter
Thank you for your messages. But I don't think Simon Peter as a Saint, but he is only a apostle of Jesus Christ. I think this tittle is based on Saint worship, is't it? If so, it is unnutral and POV. If you want to create the article about Saint Peter differed from Simon Peter, I think you should write that it is based on Saint worship. Rantaro 11:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

-ize/-ise
On Lord Elmsworth's use page you wrote:


 * Regardless of what you, or even the OED, consider to be preferred and/or correct (and I could go on at length about how the OED considers itself a non-perscriptive tome, and so doesn't claim anything 'correct' at all), use of "-ize" is generally considered an Americanism, and, certainly, to switch to it (an action, rather than a usage, IYSWIM) can be considered... unfavourably.

Are you saying that switching to an American usage ought to be considered unfavorably, or will be considered unfavorably? If the latter, are those who will so consider it worthy of our respect? Some people consider education itself unfavorably, and those who edit here will ignore those people. Would you say that the fact that something is generally considered an Americanism is more important than whether it is an Americanism? Many things the less learned among the British consider Americanisms were standard in England in 1750 (quite possibly including -ize; I'm not quite sure) and are used in America only because they were brought from England; should we therefore consider 18th-century English writers unfavorably? Michael Hardy 00:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This comment was made in the explicit context of the Wikipedia policy as it applied to a topic specifically about British-related things (and thus, to be written in BE if there is any thought to it). Please do not seek to lecture me on it as if it were otherwise. :-)
 * What was and is no more British English is linguistically and sociologically interesting, but not particularly relevent to the Wikipedia's policy, which is evidently talking about current usage patterns. To expand on my original text:
 * [...] use of "-ize" is generally considered by those who aren't American as an American English-ism, and, certainly, to go out of one's way to switch to it (an action, rather than a usage, IYSWIM) would appear to most BE people to be an outright, if very minor, violation of policy, and as such can well endanger your edits be considered... unfavourably by them, something with which I would disagree.
 * HTH.
 * Yours,
 * James F. (talk) 00:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry I was so snappish in this; I'd just been working on an Arbitration case for 3 hours solid, and the annoyance was getting to me. My apologies.
 * James F. (talk) 01:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand now.

A while back there was a discussion of "Dr. Johnson", which is now perhaps considered American usage, versus "Dr Johnson", now standard in England. This was in the article about the British lexicogapher/philosopher/philologist/poet/whatever-else, so it's a "British-related" thing. However, I think in Dr. Johnson's time, "Dr. Johnson", with that form of punctuation, was standard in England (and I think continued so until perhaps five or six decades ago). I have no strong feelings about which form should be used in the Wikipedia article, but would a British critic be right or wrong to consider it "American" usage even while it was standard British usage in Johnson's time? Michael Hardy 21:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Interesting example. Personally, I prefer "Dr./Mr./Mrs.". Calling him "Dr Johnson" would, apparently, be more 'correct' if it was being written in modern BE (in the same way that we say that William I of England was "the King of England", not "le Roi d'Angleterre"), and "Dr. Johnson" were it to be done so in modern AE, so yes, I suppose they have a point. I just think they're wrong to prefer it without the full stops :-)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Template:Oxbridge College Infobox
Hi. How do you propose we deal with colleges without a motto such as Emmanuel College, Cambridge? This is why I changed it to one parameter rather than two. Lupin 16:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Just not passing anything works...
 * James F. (talk) 16:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand your reply.


 * I think that the emmanuel page looks horribly ugly as things stand. I also question the point of having "Previous names -" in the table. We need a way of marking parameters in templates as optional - until we have that, I feel it's better to get a template that gives nice results than one that is internally elegant. Lupin 16:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Not passing anything - "[...] motto_Latin = | motto_Lattin = | [...]". I agree, it would be nice to have optional elements, but it would also be nice to be paid to do this... We can remove certain parts (I just took the infobox from Trinity and made it into a template). The problem with doing the crest your way is that it's a bit... ugly :-). Oh well.
 * James F. (talk) 17:02, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * How about dropping the past names field?
 * James F. (talk) 17:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Conversation can be continued here -- Prisonblues 18:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support
Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. It means a lot, especially coming from a seasoned contributor such as yourself. Mike H 04:17, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Brackets
Brackets indicate that words aren't original, but an ellipsis can show that words in quotes were omitted. Although dots are sometimes put in brackets, it's not a unanimously standard practice. The MLA recommends it, but the Chicago Manual of Style, which the Manual of Style seems to prefer, does not address it. If Wikipedia has a policy on brackets and ellipses, please inform me, but otherwise I think that ellipses outside of the brackets are nicer looking. Andre 22:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

STOP THIS INSTANT
Where did that horrible new infobox come from? It's disgusting! I really, REALLY think you should go back to the old one! [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 18:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Reply on template talk page. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 18:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. It was obviously the others messing around, and you trying to put things back on course. I apologise for launching my torpedos before looking. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 19:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 20:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Black Africans
"Black African" isn't the same as "African-ethnic" as Africa is the native continent of blacks (Bantu descended people); Khoisan peoples not descended from "black" Bantu peoples; pygmies (also genetically distinct from Bantus); various Semitic peoples, including Arabs; and Caucasian peoples, such as white South Africans. -- orthogonal 18:22, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not the native continent of whites. Well, it is, but it hasn't been since before they were white, if you see what I mean. "Black African" reads like a very poor piece of political correctness - how's "Black-ethnic"?


 * As I said, they don't mean the same thing -- a Black-ethnic may well have been born in Chicago or London and lived there all his life. A black African is an African of black (Bantu, more or less) descent. "African-ethnic" is essentially meaningless, given the multiple ethnicities native to Africa. If racial/ethnic information is irrelevant to the discussion, I'd just leave it out. Actually, to me"Black African" sounds pre-political correctness, something you might more often have seen in the days of colonialism. But regardless of the impression any is get from it, it does mean something and that's not synonymous with the substitutes you propose. I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, I just don't want make a change that changes meaning. -- orthogonal 19:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I'm not annoyed, just intersted.
 * But surely, given that we've already established that these are Sudanese people, saying that they're from Africa is pointless? The black-ethnic Sudanese people are, surely, the exact set we're trying to term?
 * James F. (talk) 19:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, not quite. I hadn't realized what the case was about, as I'd just seen your summary on my watchlist. The Sudan conflict is between black Christian Africans (the victims) and Arab Muslim Africans (the ones doing the killings and enslavings). So in this case, "Black African" was likely used to distinguish between the two groups involved. -- orthogonal 19:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changes on United Kingdom
I'm curious why you changed the UK total population. The number i used was released yesterday by the National Statistics office of the UK. [-- Pilot101 19:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)]


 * Dear lord, Jdforrester has the power to change the population of whole countries? Is he a mass murderer, or does he father lots of children, or is he a really lax worker in Her Majesty's Immigration Office? -- orthogonal 19:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That would be REX who changed that ; I've now re-instated your figure.
 * James F. (talk) 20:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * And has done so again. Fun. Reverted, left a note.
 * James F. (talk) 02:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changes to England
Thanks for getting rid of the deprecated elements and attributes in the infobox. However, I would like to take issue with your removal of the word country. I think England can be described as a country. Scotland is, and I suspect anyone trying to change it would find themselves reverted. There was some discussion of this on Talk:England not too long ago, in which it seemed people were happy with the use of "country". I notice that in that discussion you said that the article was about England before the unification with Wales. I disagree with this: the article seems to be about England at all stages of its history, and if it isn't, does that mean we have no article on England as it exists today? I won't revert you because I don't want to seem like some kind of angry nationalist, but I do think it's perfectly legitimate to call England a country, and that this is preferable to the awkward manner of calling it a "part" of the United Kingdom. All that needs to be stressed is that while England, Scotland and Wales are countries, they have long since ceased to be sovereign states. Cheers. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 01:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Replied on Talk:England.
 * James F. (talk) 02:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comparison of web browsers
Why Web? --Cantus 06:15, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style - in summary, the Web and the Internet are proper nouns, and so get capitalised.
 * James F. (talk) 06:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please, please, stop
elements cross-posted

You have now gone thrice through the article United Kingdom, and once England, concatenating table lines together into rows. Although this is something that one can do, for tables of this nature (rather than small ones that the functionality was originally for) it severely diminishes the readability of the page for editors with no advantage.

You seem to dislike stylesheets, including, quite mind-numbing-ly, switching from other tags to use of the " " tags, which is expressly wrong - they are deprecated, and anything else (including, indeed, no markup at all) is favoured in their place.

You revert changes to articles without noting so, which is rather rude.

You have repeatedly change the population figure on United Kingdom to an unofficial figure, purportedly for 2004, when both I and Pilot101 are attempting to use the official 2003 figure as announced just a few days ago by the ONS.

Other small, miscellaneous points:


 * 244,820 km² is of the order of 1 E 11 m², not 1 E 19 m² (1000^2 * 2.44 E 5 = 2.44 E (5+6) = 2.44 E 11).
 * Currency figures are quoted at "$1.664 trillion", not "1.664 trillion $"
 * The names of songs, such as national anthems, are italicised in print.
 * Similarly, foreign terms are also italicised, such as de facto, ex generalis (and e.g.), &c..
 * The term "Calling code" is an Americanism; "Dialling code" is the term as used in the United Kingdom.

I am now going to do my best to fix the above.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 00:54, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir,
 * I apologise for any inconvenience that I may have caused. I was merely conforming the pages to the template at WikiProject Countries. If you feel that it will improve articles not doing so I will stop.
 * Also, I would like to ask you about the size of the letters at the head of the table on the United Kingdom article. I must confess, I find them too big. If you look at the articles of any other countries (e.g. Russia, Greece, Poland and others) you will find that they are of reasonable size. As you have asked me to stop editing the article I feel that I must ask you to reduce the size of the heading.
 * Yours truly,
 * REX 14:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you so very much for promising to not edit the page, and then going back on your word; it does so fill one with confidence in your ability to work with others.
 * The "template" at WikiProject Countries is several years old, and has been refined over time. A more modern codification of the overall ethos of the infobox is located at Template:Infobox Countries, which, as I'm sure you can plainly see, is actually what is on the United Kingdom page.
 * Yours,
 * James F. (talk) 23:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir,
 * I would like to draw your attention to every other article of a country. They are using the very template which I used on my last Edit of the United Kingdom article. You now used a different form which apart from being very hard to read (as the writing is so small), makes the article differ from every other article and is what you told me I shouldn't have done in your first post. I edited the article because after asking you to fix the table as you call it, you didn't do anything. So, obviously someone had to do it.
 * If you look at both versions of the article mine and yours, you will see that mine apart from being much easier to read (writing is bigger) conforms to the other articles of countries.
 * Yours truly,
 * REX 09:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Compare your version,, with mine (after Jiang's correction, which I had intended), . The size of the header is identical. I'm going to revert to the newer version, and increase the font-size, as this seems to be the only thing you want, and you're just going about it the wrong way. Please don't be so much of a stick-in-the-mud.
 * James F. (talk) 22:18, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Now done: : as said, I have increased the text size, though in my opinion it is now far too large, and rather ugly; no matter. As for the time you so very kindly gave me in order to acquiesce to your demands, less than 5 hours, well, some of us don't spend our time checking the Wikipedia for the latest bon m&ocirc;t to pass your lips.
 * James F. (talk) 22:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I believe that you are being rather aggressive. I do not think that I have treated you in such a way, if I have however, I apologise. Also, I think that you have the wrong idea about what I was saying. It may be my fault as English is not my first language. I was proposing to reduce the size of the heading and increase the size of the letters inside the cells of the table. The size of the heading is large, and the size of the other letters is 95%. I propose that we change the size of the title to +15 and the size of the other letters to 100%. Other changes I propose are to increase the width to 305 px and to remove the style="border-bottom:3px solid gray;. I have below two samples for you to look at.

{|
 * The one on the right is the table as it currently exists:


 * The one on the left is how I propose that it should be (latest):

{| border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="margin:1em 0 1em 1em; float:right; width:300px;"
 * + style="font-size:medium;" | United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland&dagger;
 * align="center" colspan="2" |
 * align="center" colspan="2" |

(French: God and my right)'' 1 - Total - % water 244,820 km² 1.3% - Total (2003) - Density 59,553,700 246/km&sup2; - Total (2003)  - GDP/head US$1.664 trillion $27,700 (1) In Scotland the Motto is Nemo Me Impune Lacessit (Latin: "No-one harms me with impunity"). (2) Officially recognised regional languages: In Wales: Welsh; and in the Western Isles: Scottish Gaelic.
 * align="center" colspan="2" font-size:small;" | ''Royal motto: Dieu et mon droit
 * align="center" colspan="2" font-size:small;" | ''Royal motto: Dieu et mon droit
 * align="center" colspan="2" | [[image:LocationUnitedKingdom.png]]
 * Official language
 * None, English is de facto 2
 * Capital
 * London
 * Capital's coordinates
 * 51° 30' N, 0° 10' W
 * Largest city
 * London
 * Queen
 * Elizabeth II
 * Prime Minister
 * Tony Blair
 * Political system
 * Constitutional monarchy
 * Area
 * Elizabeth II
 * Prime Minister
 * Tony Blair
 * Political system
 * Constitutional monarchy
 * Area
 * Constitutional monarchy
 * Area
 * Area
 * Ranked 76th
 * Population
 * Population
 * Ranked 21st
 * GDP (PPP)
 * GDP (PPP)
 * Ranked 4th
 * Currency
 * Pound Sterling (£)
 * Time zone
 * UTC, Summer: UTC +1
 * Establishment
 * 1801 (Act of Union 1800 3)
 * National anthem
 * God Save the Queen 4
 * Internet TLD
 * .uk 5
 * Dialling code
 * 44
 * International call prefix
 * 00
 * colspan="2" align="left" |
 * Dialling code
 * 44
 * International call prefix
 * 00
 * colspan="2" align="left" |
 * 00
 * colspan="2" align="left" |
 * colspan="2" align="left" |

(3) Formed as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Name changed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927.

(4) unofficial

(5) ISO 3166-1 is GB
 * }


 * James F.'s suggestion:


 * }

Please tell me what you think. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours truly, REX 09:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Your original changes increased the size of the header as well, which has lead a great deal to my confusion in this matter, as well as did my failure to notice the change to the main body's text (I thought that you were talking about the header, not the main, text). A breakdown:
 * Heading size large -> larger : That's what I did already; Jiang changed it to large. We should not use "+15" and its like, as these are absolute changes.
 * Normal size 95% -> 100% : I have already increased it as you wanted fom 90%; and more, and I think we would be going too far.
 * Width 300px -> 305px : There is no need to do this; the current text fits fine, and increasing the encroachment of the box into the page is perhaps not a good idea, as it will look too large.
 * Removal of separation bar : I'm not sure that this is a good idea; it is a useful, helpful, clear distinction between graphical and textual content. However, if you must, I'm happy to have it removed.
 * I have implemented these changes above, for comparison.
 * If I have been overly aggressive, I apologise; my work here of late has involved a great deal of regrettable confrontation. I hope that in future we can productive work together. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 09:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear James,
 * I believe that you are right. We do not need to change the table's width from 300px to 305px. I do believe though that the size of the letters inside the cells should be 100%, because by so doing the letters of the main text are the same size as the letters on the table as they are in most other articles (e.g. Greece, Germany). I am proposing this because smaller letters would be harder to be read by people with bad eyesight (such as myself).
 * I still think that the letters of the heading should be of size +15. That means that they are bigger than the other letters on the table as they are in other articles (e.g. France, Russia). +15 I believe would also be easier to be edited, because descriptions such as big, large and larger could mean anything, but a number shows the size of the letters as they appear on a word processing program which most computer users are familiar with.
 * I have no firm believes with regard to the separation bar, as some articles include it (e.g. Hungary) and some don't (e.g. Poland). It is however not included in the template.
 * Concluding, I believe that by using these suggestions, we would be able to create a sense of consistency between most articles (of countries).
 * I have modified the middle table above accordingly.
 * I sincerely look forward to hearing from you.
 * REX 12:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The whole point is that an infobox is nicely and clearly laid out, unlike normal text, and so can be smaller without loss of readability; I think more than 95% is unnecessary. The terms "large", "larger", "big", and so on do not "mean anything", they mean a very specific increase relative to the currently used size - the relative size of the heading to the text will be the same, everywhere; "+15", however, is an absolute increase, which is very bad, because it means that the relative size of the heading to the text will be different for different people.
 * I would suggest that, if you have poor eyesight, the most effective cure is to increase the font size of your browser, rather than others' pages; it's what I do when I'm not using my glasses.
 * James F. (talk) 12:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see. What do you think we should do then? I'm sure that you agree that the United Kingdom page differs from other articles (of countries). Do you think that is a good thing though? I recommend that you spend some time looking at other articles of countries and then you will see that my recommendations make them and the UK page alike. Would the indication Medium be able to be used to describe the title? I changed my sample above accordingly. REX 14:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear James, This isn't getting anywhere. I would like you to tell me what you think of my latest version above before I put it on the article. The main points I believe that you will be interested are: I believe that with these changes, the UK article will be like the other articles of countries. Yours truly, REX 19:21, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The fort size of the heading is medium.
 * The font size of the royal motto and the notes at the bottom is small.
 * The font size of the rest of the table is the same size as the letters of the main article (the font-size: 90%; has been erased).
 * The table's width is 305px (This can be changed, I set it at 305px because before the table looked quite long and thin).
 * The separation bar has been removed.


 * I thought we had agreed on 300px still? And "medium" is too small; "larger" is fine, really.
 * And the idea is not to make the United Kingdom article look like all the others - I'm happy to alter a few hundred pages to conform to a better standard - the idea is to make the United Kingdom article look /best/.
 * James F. (talk) 06:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Would you like to check it now? I think that a width of 300px would be appropriate. Are you sure that larger is larger than Medium? If you compare my sample to yours (your heading size is larger and mine is medium) you will see that medium is larger. REX 10:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's fine. Do you want to do it, or should I?
 * James F. (talk) 12:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just did it. I must say, I really enjoyed co-operating with you. REX 15:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ring species
Done-ity done done done. Do feel free to reformat and tweak the example which (it is afterall half eleven) I feel I may have expressed somewhat clumsily. You can find a diagram to help here. Incidentally, if someone can get hold of or make a similar diagram for the article, I feel it would clarify things no end. --Viki 22:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph_175
I've responded to your objection at Featured_article_candidates. Please respond, in turn. -- Jmabel 22:09, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello? -- Jmabel 00:09, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * What? I made it clear that I didn't mean my comment as an objection (quite the contrary), but dismissing my comment does not my problem solve. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 06:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)