User talk:Jguk/Archive5

List of national leaders
Has a new comment on the Talk page from me, and relevant changes on the article. I hope that the wording is diplomatic enough and that you can accept my reasoning on the Talk page, or at the least challenge my decision on the basis of the argument that I present there. I will try to be more respectful in my disagreements. I still maintain that I was reasonable before, but I can also grant that I did not have the charity and good will that I would want from fellow Wikipedians. Justin (koavf) 21:30, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Given my admitted lack of expertise in this area, I'm almost hesitant to ask this - however. Over the last couple days or so, I've been working a little bit on sorting basic details of cricketers (birthdates, classifications, and other embellishments of the articles in question). I was wondering if the necessity exists for something like (on the same basis as  ). An article at Template:Cricketbio-stub reading:

Qdiv class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub"XQtable CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 style="background-color: transparent;"XQtrXQtdX Q/tdXQtdX''This article relating to a cricket player or coach is a stub. You can help WikiProject Cricket by Q expanding it]''.Q/tdXQ/trXQ/tableXQ/divX

Please replace all Q's with < and all X's with >. The local URL should keep consistent with each page it is pasted on. This will create:

When I say, please help WikiProject Cricket, I don't recall all of your guidelines off-hand, but I'm sure one of the basic principles is to make the biographies as good as possible. I'd be happy to do all the sorting work if this is okayed. Thank you. Bobo192 04:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's just that there are so many biographical cricket stubs that wading through all the cricket stubs to find ones about players (to which I'm sure many people have statistical, biographical, or other data to share about them, might find a separate category useful, to do with cricket players rather than, for example, WCCC or MCCC which are team stubs; and, for example, Irfan Pathan, one of the (albeit meatier) biographical stubs.


 * Summarily, I think the most important thing for all cricketer articles is to have basic biographical data; but still, for those which need fleshing out even more, a biographical stub may be useful. My logic is based on all the articles I have recently created. The end product will look something like:




 * ..which at the moment leads to your name, but would lead to any player - the way to do this is by saying:


 * Which will go onto the page Template:Cricketbio-stub. I hope this is slightly clearer than it was before. Bobo192 15:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * True. Most of them appear to be biographical stubs anyway. The need may not be there currently. Thank you. Bobo192 19:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UK general election, 2005
Could you provide some sources for the following: "The constituencies boundaries have been determined with reference to a Labour party recommendation. They are skewed firmly in the Government's favour." Cheers Mark 22:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I've provided responses to your claims over Fiona Jones' sex allegations in the Howard Flight case, and the alleged gerrymandering of parliamentary boundaries, in Talk:UK general election, 2005. Please could you read & respond to them (as well as others' own comments about your additions to the page) before trying to add them to the page again. Qwghlm 09:10, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. I've read the referenced article and failed to find any reference to redrawing of boundaries to a Labour Party proposal. Andrew Marr only states that the Conservative Party faces an up-hill struggle due to the effect of changing demographics on the "old constituency boundaries." While I would have to research this further to be confident in debating this with you, I am confident that given the reference provided, I was justified in removing the section quoted above. On style I would have to say while the issues you raised are now more disjointed within the article due to other's NPOV edits, it does read less like an article from the Daily Mail!. Thanks again Mark 18:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan Renaming Poll
Hi Jguk. Instantnood has started a poll on moving "XXX of Taiwan" to "XXX of the Republic of China" at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC. The poll "started" a week ago, with little advertising. He had maybe 2 people voting in his favor and 10 people against, but since then, he's started campaigning and all of sudden, surprise, surprise, it's about even. Could you take a look and vote if you think one way or the other? Thanks--160.39.195.88 20:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bath: FAC
I have responded to your criticisms of the article on WP:FAC and have corrected most. As mentioned, most references are listed as external links, I have noted this in the article now. --Oldak Quill 00:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Duchess of Cornwall
I apologise for reverting one of your changes on Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. Legally, she is HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales: there is no doubt on this point whatsoever. For articles on royals, it appears conventional for the full correct legal title to be used first, and for the individual's style(s) to be mentioned afterwards. One may cite the pages on the other members of the royal family as examples. Consequently, I hope that you do not mind my edit to the page. -- Emsworth 12:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You wrote "Also, everyone else is calling her that - it's not for Wikipedia to go out on a limb with a different style - we should just report what everyone else is saying." We are not, however, going out on a limb: she is officially entitled to the style "Princess of Wales," but she just prefers not to use it. This dispute is not like that over Lady Louise Windsor, in which case the official style is itself unclear. There is no contravention of NPOV policies in calling her Duchess of Cornwall or Princess of Wales. Moreover, what "everyone" calls her is not the point: almost everyone refers to the Prince of Wales as "Prince Charles," and his former wife as "Princess Diana," but of course we do not use these solecisms.

Furthermore, I beg to note that I do not look kindly upon the accusation that I should be intentionally disruptive. -- Emsworth 12:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I humbly maintain that it is not a contravention of NPOV policies to refer to someone by her correct title. For now, I will accept the formulation "The Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall" to avoid a revert war, though in the long run I would like to see the dispute resolved. -- Emsworth 12:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"[The] Princess X, Title of Y" is a fairly standard legal formulation (though it is not used too often in the popular media and elsewhere). See for instance Sophie, Countess of Wessex ("The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex"), Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester ("Princess Richard, Duchess of Gloucester"), Katharine, Duchess of Kent ("Princess Edward, Duchess of Kent"). The formation is parallel to those used for princes; the Prince of Wales, for instance, is technically "HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," as is quite clearly noted on his page. -- Emsworth 12:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Everyday use" is not an entirely useful standard. By this standard, we would have Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prince Charles, Princess Diana, and the like. There is, of course, nothing incorrect about calling her "Duchess of Cornwall." Similarly, there is nothing incorrect about referring to her as "Princess of Wales." Under Wikipedia conventions, articles on royal family members begin with the full legal titles. There is nothing wrong with putting "Duchess of Cornwall" in bold in addition to the legal title. -- Emsworth 12:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles
Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. &mdash; Instantnood 12:52, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Moorgate

 * Okay, I've expanded the balloon flight and Moorgate crash sections considerably. There are lots of events but I think the problem is defining whether something is better covered in articles about neighbouring areas, eg., Barbican and Guildhall or areas in the rest of the City. I've stuck to covering only about areas directly connected to the present street, which I think is a fair definition. The London Wall pic should not cover the other pic now, I've checked inside IE. --JuntungWu 09:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood arbcom request
I think your ArbCom case would benefit a lot from a better structuring of the ArbCom request. JuntungWu 10:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Sede vacante.jpg
I have uploaded your file onto. There is now a dispute on the German language WP about its copyright. I would like to ask you about the source of the picture and about the copyright of it. Scriberius 15:41, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Transclusion of article sections
Please stop doing this. Transcluding prose into multiple articles is not an accepted mechanism,a nd has in fact been shot down everywhere it's been tried. WP:VfD is a project page, so it shouldn't used as a reason to try this with articles. I suggest you propose your mechanism first, before implementing it any more. -- Netoholic @ 23:01, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

DYK
DYK is indeed meant to showcase new articles, but it's selective too. Stubs aren't featured. Saying the season is on its way makes the item fit more at Sports Current events. Regardless, the rules aren't set in stone.

Also, more interesting facts are likelier to draw more editors. Anyway the fact you've given now is indeed more interesting than the earlier one. Thanks! (The "rules" are at WP:DYK.) Mgm|(talk) 12:02, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Duchess of Cornwall
As the difference of views over the article Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall has been rather difficult to resolve, I have created a poll on the talk page, to gauge the views of other users. -- Emsworth 19:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Surprise
Jon, would you be interested in carrying out Wikipedia's administrative tasks? =  ( talk  •  contribs )= 11:54, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * PS I saw that you haven't licenced the Oval photograph you took recently. Please could you licence all your images. If you could upload your images to wikipedia commons, (make an account there first) it would help other wiki-languages access the image. =   ( talk  •  contribs )= 19:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, go on - you can be an admin and choose your controversies, you know. Being able to delete, one-click-revert, edit protected pages, etc, is all very useful.  There is no compulsion to get sucked into dealing with VfD or whatever.  The more the merrier. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Commons help
Hope this cleared your doubts. =  ( talk  •  contribs )= 20:01, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Create an account in commons (just like you did here)
 * 2) When in commons, upload the image (like you do here)
 * 3) To avoid licencing queries later on, mention the licence you wish to use in the summary eg, ,
 * 4) A file is linked just like it is done here. Other languages can also call the image using the exact *same* filename. (see the images in the ==History== section of India as to how they are called in the English WP)
 * 5) Don't forget to categorise them, or else they will remain orphans and hard to find.
 * 6) PD means Public Domain> If you release it under this licence, you lose all rights to it. GFDL> Anyone can make a derivative work as long as it is 1) non commercial (he has to pay you for a commercial release) 2) derivative is released under GFDL 3) you are credited as the photographer. 3) CC> Creative Commons. A person is free to make commercial works on your image, as long as *you* are credited as the source. Like in PD, you cannot claim payment. There are different subversions to the above, but I won't bore you with the finer details.
 * 7) Copyrighted images are not allowed in Commons.

Pope template box
There is a disagreement over the form of template to be used for popes. One user designed what I think was an extremely clean, visually attractive layout. One or two others replaced it with the standard and IMHO decidedly inferior version. IMHO we should be using the new version as a replacement standard, not using the inferior standard as the one to use. I have asked people to vote on the issue on Template talk:Infobox pope. Your opinions would be welcomed. Fear ÉIREANN 22:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening
The Arbitration request now entitled Instantnood, et al. has been accepted. Although you have an advocate, you may still, if you wish, bring your own evidence to Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al./Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:37, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Styles
Styles should not be used at the start of biographical articles unless this practice is universally applied, otherwise it is not NPOV, and does not in any case follow the Naming conventions (names and titles) standard. How does this get resolved? Whig 04:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
It seems that people are needed to defend the His Holiness style on Pope Benedict XVI. There is a campaign right now from a handful of people to remove it. Fear ÉIREANN 23:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Current sports events
Hi, You deleted my insertions on Formula One calendar and other sport events because "you usually do not elongate the entries by giving venues" which I do not agree. Why should not the reader know where it is being held? An event is determined by time and place! CeeGee 22:07, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, Sorry but, I could not understand how the reader can get the information where the event "May 15: Boxing: Joe Bloggs v John Smith" will be held. Please help! CeeGee 07:15, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your reply. What I meant was not only the event mentioned as an example, but in general all events listed without any venue. I hope you will review your "policy" in the future. CeeGee 08:15, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

My adminship: thanks!
Hi Jguk. Thanks very much for your vote for my RfA. I promise to be prudent, wise, sagacious and totally unilateral in all my admin affairs. I should say that I am very pleased at the number of people who supported me – it's very nice to know I'm making a positive impact. I'm confused though: if I didn't fulfill your admin criterion, why did you support me? Cheers again, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Lol, that's quite funny. Nice to be the exception.  Here's a promise: when he retires, I'll do my best to take him to featured status.  I guess I could do a previous captain (AJS) in the meantime... Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for supporting my successful RfA. I will do my best to live up to the responsibility and your trust. --khaosworks 07:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kind of childish...
... your edit of April 24. ---Isaac R 22:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am very surprised. If anyone else had removed a reference to a papal inauguration from a list of notable events I would have put it down to vandalism. How the heck can you possibly categorise the inauguration of the head of the world's biggest religion, with billions of followers, as 'not notable'? What next? The assassination of JFK judged not notable? The second world war, not notable? Fear ÉIREANN 23:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Was John Paul II's and John Paul I's and Paul VI's inauguration there? Presumably their elections and their deaths should be there? I doubt it - none of these are earth-shattering events. Eg I have never seen a newspaper's list of anniversaries include amongst them the inauguration of a pope, jguk 23:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cricket...
Alas, it seems that your bold (and inventive) move has not gone down well. However, I have made a new suggestion involving a very pretty template (see right). Hope we can get a compromise with this. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As consensus was clearly going against us, I moved Cricket (sport) back to Cricket (getting rid of Neutrality's ugly disambiguation which was a plain copy of Cricket (disambiguation)) and created Cricket (portal) with a box (as above) referencing the portal from the original page. I hope this arrangement is fairly satisfactory. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to speedy cricket (portal)? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, OK. I may have deleted it myself, but I'm a little wary. By the way, have you seen WP:RFAR recently?  I suggest you do... Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

...and WP:SIGN
Usually it's better to suggest a topic for someone else to write about, if it is something you are personally involved in; or at least to get active help from some neutral third party in writing it. For instance, it is hard for me as a neutral reader to even understand what you are getting at in your proposed piece about the Cricket portal.

Also, please leave potential Signpost articles in your own user space while they are being edited, and then move them after they are finished. I moved the cricket article into your userspace for now. But do please keep contributing suggestions and writing; and let me know if you are able to clarify on what you've written so far and want it to be edited.

Cheers, +sj +  16:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverting Portal:Cricket
With regards to this diff, I apologize. I have no business joining a revert war, ever, or tsking at people through edit summaries. I should have tried to convince you it was a bad idea, but I lost my temper instead. That said: please do carefully consider whether there's any further point in eliminating the reference to either VfD vote. This will not help along matters, on the contrary. We need to find some calm in this storm from where we can continue discussion (rather than the silly voting that's going on now). I suggest letting the VfDs run their course is the most sensible thing you can do now; it should be obvious they will not reach consensus for anything anyway. After that, we can start a decent discussion on where portals should be and how they should look, rather than this pre-emptive tug of war, which isn't helping anyone. That something? JRM · Talk 23:31, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Wikiportal
Hi Jguk. Just so you know, the original reason the cricket wikiportal (wherever it now is, I have no idea) was removed from the wikiportal page was that it then was a disambig page, not a portal. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Bot update notification
I would appreciated if you had notify me 3-5 days in advanced before implementing that change. It's not like I can stop everything just to fix the bot because one person decided to do something. -- AllyUnion (talk)
 * Not only breaking all the links... Should have told me about that too. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Personal Inference
You seem to be very keen to make certain inferences about someone having a profit-interest in the ongoing survey. Coupled with your query on my Talk page as to whether I knew Lulu personally (I don't), I am concerned you are trying to make some insinuation that I cannot quite grasp the gist of. If you have something to say, please do so. Whig 08:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Corrie character article
You might have noticed that I wrote an article on Elsie Tanner. Feel free to make corrections and add info I left out. Mike H 20:54, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Portalspace
Now that is a good idea. I've just found Portalspace and have added it to Village pump (technical) and Goings-on. Perhaps I should move the UK wikiportal. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I am not sure how much traffic the Wikiportals get - they are rather out of the way, and not much linked to. Brian Close is in Template talk:Wikiportal:United_Kingdom/Featured - I use it to update the template from time to time, and update the talk page from Featured articles from time to time too. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Larkin
Thank you. I will treasure it. ;-p SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

BC/AD
I don't appreciate being called a liar, or the dupe of a liar. Guettarda 16:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm quite puzzled - I've done no such thing. Kind regards, jguk 17:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * In response to my posting you said: This is the lie that Slrubenstein is trying to propagate. Since I was endorsing that "lie" then either I am a liar, or I have been fooled by a liar.  Those are the only interpretations I can see from your statement.  I value the truth, and try my best to be truthful; I am unhappy being called a liar.  Guettarda 21:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW - as an aside (since your talk page is full of talk about it) - did the cricket portal end up anywhere, or was it simply deleted? Thanks. Guettarda 21:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see - I was confused by the redlinked portal icon - I didn't make the distinction between Portal:Cricket and Cricket (portal) obviously. Thanks.  Guettarda 21:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket
Thanks for the invitation, which I have accepted. I've been meaning to do something about that for a while, and you gave me the prod I needed to actually do something about it. Loganberry 14:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The cricket wikireader
Hi. As I noted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, I am creating a wikireader of the cricket articles. I have created a basis at User:Smoddy/Cricket WikiReader. I'd appreciate any comments you have. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 14:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Style dispute
Be bold, but stay cool. The last word has obviously not been spoken on the style issue. While everyone is still talking, please don't continue to revert insertion/removal of tags on Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Revert wars never fixed anything. The dispute is very well known and there is no point to single out one article to highlight it. I do not want to protect this page, and I will be very disappointed if that turns out to be necessary. If you would consider stepping away for just a moment and having the Wrong Version up while we talk it over, I would be grateful. JRM · Talk 10:24, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Protecting pages
I began to edit the page before it was protected, and it was protected while I was making my edits. Note the time on the page history. Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 15:50, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Support
I support the suggestion 100%, as I am sure many others will too. Their behaviour is outrageous and breaking all the rules of consensus building. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

What is the meaning of this?
Why is there article content in the Wikipedia namespace here: WikiProject Cricket/MCC v Warwickshire 8-11 April 2005? This should be moved to the article space. --mav

Hm. The main problem was having links to the Wikipedia namespace from the article space and having links in heading titles. Now removed. --mav 23:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Those are links to the Wikipedia namespace from the article space. Such links are not allowed outside of templates and are confusing to readers (who will click on them and be presented with the same info). Having links in titles also goes counter to Manual of Style standards. The edit links already take the editor to to the right page. --mav 12:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said above this is a totally non-standard approach that will not stand. If the text is going to be used on multiple pages then proper templates should be used. And there is no reason why there should be links to the individual parts from headings or anywhere else. The same functionality will be there if proper templates are used and there are no links to the individual pages other than section edit links. That I think is a nice compromise. --mav 12:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic is wrong. Plain and simple. Many of our mirrors delete all pages in the wikipedia namespace so your pages will disappear in that case. There is still no reason why the individual parts should be linked from the heading titles. I have proposed a compromise that will much more closely conform to standard practice without upsetting the functionality you want. --mav 12:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll help with the moves later but there is nothing easier than having the section edit link to edit with. Having a direct link to the template is very non-standard. --mav 13:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

My proposal
Why do you think I am forcing my views on Wikipedia? No one has to even look at my proposal. And anyone who disagrees with my proposal (e.g. you) is welcome to express objections in the discussion sections, and to vote against it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  19:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Your proposal starts with a long essay teaching people to be offended by something that most would not ordinarily be offended about. That's what I do not like, jguk 19:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

styles and stuff - that poll is dead
Seems we're stuck on the styles issue. In the interest of moving forward and stopping the edit wars and arguments, would you find my idea at the bottom of Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Ratification acceptable? Care to comment on it? Cheers. Zocky 02:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm back
Hi. Thanks for your wishes. My reports are now clear and so won't have to take those horrible medicines. Regards, =   ( talk  •  contribs )= 06:12, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Brisbane Cricket Ground
Hi! Please see comments on the practice of labelling Australian sporting venues with the cricket portal link at Talk:Brisbane Cricket Ground. Thanks!--The Brain of Morbius 23:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC
I thought I would give you an opportunity to reconsider your present RfC in regards to my account. I have posted a response and while I do think your bringing this erroneous account forward was in extremely bad taste, I can understand that you may have done this in the heat of some passion and did not stop to consider your statement carefully. I think there are substantial defects in your presentation and I do not think that either of us need to keep this albatross around. If you want to proceed in spite of my response and my request here, I think it would demonstrate bad faith on your part, and I would prefer that our disagreements be friendly. Thank you for your consideration. Whig 11:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Schools
Please join the discussion at Schools - this is an effort to reach consensus (or at least, compromise) through discussion, rather than voting. And it seems to be succeeding. Radiant_* 14:20, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sadducees
May I direct you attention to the Sadducees article. It appears not all Jews accept what some Jews consider the Jewish canon of scripture. See for instance Bible and Biblical_canon. Nobs 14:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. However, I don't know why you are telling me this. Kind regards, jguk 19:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)