User talk:Jguk/Archive6

BC/AD vs BCE/CE
Why did you revert my changes? BCE/CE are well established and accepted standards in academia, especially since 'BC/AD' carries Christian baggage. There is currently a debate going on here as to what should be standard, and considering the increasing number of articles adhering to BCE/CE, why do you oppose this? SouthernComfort 01:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You will be aware that the debate shows there is no consensus (indeed their is a minority) in favour of Slrubenstein's proposal. This is not surprising - the overwhelming majority of English-speakers in the world use BC/AD. Since you know of the debate, I am surprised that you chose to make changes that clearly go against the grain. You will also be aware that making changes such as the one you did cause widespread offence. For example, one change in one exam paper caused questions to be asked in both houses of the NSW legislature, and for the Minister of Education to have to note that the change should be made. Please do not make changes such as these in the future. Kind regards, jguk 06:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with you and despite the debate, I felt that the good lies in action, and to be bold in setting an example. I consider BC/AD to be extremely offensive to myself personally, as I am not a Christian and I am vehemently opposed to this sort of religious imposition (regardless of what the religion is). However, until there is a consensus of some sort, I will avoid radical changes to existing articles. Again, let it be said that this does not mean I agree with your opinion, nor am I admitting any wrong-doing, as I feel I have done nothing wrong. Regards, SouthernComfort 06:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Likewise, one could make the argument that the only reason the non-Christian world continues to use the BC/AD convention is due to the fact that they have their own culture-specific dating systems. Even in those countries we are starting to see wider acceptance of BCE/CE since the Western (nominally Christian) world has largely secularised, thus making the BC/AD terminology obsolete. In Western countries like Canada and France you are also starting to see greater acceptance of this. The United States has pushed forward many novel, progressive innovations in every field over the years and to oppose this simply because it is 'American' doesn't make much sense to me.


 * At any rate, I chose not to become directly involved in this debate as it was obvious there would be no consensus anytime soon. However, I did not think it would be a problem to begin converting articles which do not relate to Western or Christian history and civilisation. Regards, SouthernComfort 09:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You cannot say that there won't be a consensus anytime soon. Who knows, maybe a compromise will be reached at some point soon. Only a few days have passed so far. At any rate, I will continue reverting to the BCE/CE version of List of kings of Persia and you can continue reverting back to the BC/AD version until one of us gets bored or gives up, or we take this to mediation or arbitration. Perhaps you should relax and have a glass of Scotch (and perhaps go see Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven as well) instead of worrying so much about continuing the imposition of 'BC/AD' POV terminology upon non-Christian history. SouthernComfort 13:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from making personal attacks against my character and person. I don't live in New Zealand and I have zero interest in New Zealand. You cannot use these nonsensical arguments to impose Christian terminology upon non-Christian articles and chronologies. Iranian history has absolutely nothing to do with New Zealand, the U.K. or Australia. Just because Anglo-Saxon Protestants from these three countries want to impose Christian POV terminology upon Iranian history does not make it right, and this is beyond excessively offensive and brings to mind the imperialistic ambitions the British had towards Iran (but always failed in the end.) It is not appreciated, nor am I amused by these imperialistic arguments. SouthernComfort 14:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy encourages editors to be bold and make the appropriate changes where necessary. There is no reason to continue the adherence of 'BC/AD' in Iranian histories and chronologies when the majority of such articles adhere to BCE/CE. I find offense in BC/AD precisely because of the latent implications (automatic acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior). Many other users do as well. As I have said, I have zero interest in personally imposing BCE/CE upon Christian or European history articles. This is one chronology - one chronological list. If it's not such a big deal to you, then give it up and allow BCE/CE to take hold. It is irrational of you to insist on reverting back to BC/AD when the article in question is one article and has nothing to do with Christianity or Europe (or the U.K. or Australia or New Zealand or Christian editors from these countries.) SouthernComfort 14:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I noticed you are reverted my edits at the Medes article back to BC/AD. Don't think I won't notice and that I won't revert back after 24 hours. Believe me, my friend, I will continue this for as long as I have to and I will spread awareness of this issue to as many editors as possible and focus my efforts entirely on this issue. If you have the right to revert back to BC/AD, I have the right to revert to BCE/CE. But I suggest you be careful in not violating 3RR. SouthernComfort 14:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please spare me the rhetoric and 'kind regards,' as you have shown me anything but. There is no understanding between us - there is only the imperialistic understanding that you wish to impose upon Iranian history articles wish is totally unacceptable. There is no preferable convention - both are acceptable, and as such, since Iranian history has nothing to do with Christianity, BCE/CE is the most acceptable convention as far as these articles are concerned. SouthernComfort 14:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You are the one who is disrupting Wikipedia with your constant reverts (you are on your third one right now) and who wishes to impose 'religio-political' terminology (BCE/CE terminology is secular). Don't think that you can threaten me - I know the rules of the game. SouthernComfort 14:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been absolutely clear. You are the one who is being vague and obviously fishing for an excuse to 'report' me (for what I have no idea, but I won't play your harassing game). Sorry, won't work. SouthernComfort 14:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You have broken the 3RR rule. SouthernComfort 14:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Bangladeshis in England
You may do. If you are very lucky... Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Abdulaziz Mosque, Gibraltar.jpg
Burgundavia (&#9992; take a flight?) 13:25, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Images
I noticed this image, and I figured it had simply been an oversight. If you wouldn't mind tagging your images as, that would be great. I have change the gibralter one to that, as per your statement on my talk page. Cheers. Burgundavia (&#9992; take a flight?) 13:47, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't carry your campaign against BCE/CE into other articles
Jguk, it seems pointlessly combative for you to charge around Wikipedia changing all BCE/CEs to BC/AD. You'd have a LOT of articles to change. Including all the Islamic articles I've worked on, since I use BCE/CE out of politeness. Please desist. Zora 08:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not changing articles that were previously always in BCE notation to BC. I am merely reverting recent provocative changes made by a small number of editors who are displeased that Slrubenstein's proposal has failed, and are attempting to force it on WP by the backdoor. My understanding of current practice is that WP accepts both styles, but you should not change arbitrarily from one to the other - all I am doing is reverting arbitary changes to the original. Kind regards, jguk 08:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * All the Iranian articles on which I've worked use BCE/CE. Surely all the articles in a particular subject area should use the same style ... especially if the editors working in that subject area concur that this is the best. I'm in a mano-a-mano conflict with Southern Comfort, but even I have to agree that BCE/CE is appropriate for areas that have always been majority non-Christian. That's the style used in all the current historical works as well. Zora 08:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I am REALLY REALLY upset. I just completely rewrote the article on Islam and other religions. I took material from two other articles, merged it, and re-ordered it. You say that you don't intend to change things that were originally written with BCE/CE ... and then you go and change something that I just wrote and put up a few hours ago. This is utterly outrageous. Please @#$%@#$%! stop!!!!! Zora 10:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

complaint
I am filing a complaint at ArbCom against you, because you keep changing BCE to BC abd CE to AD in non-Christian related articles. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  14:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Do not edit other editors' user pages
Your edit of my personal user page is a serious infraction, even worse than your other petty gaming of WP, revert wars, 3RRs, WP:Point, personal attacks, and the rest. 'Do not touch my user page! If you wish to comment on my talk page, I will leave your comment intact. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:50, 2005 May 22 (UTC)


 * Please refer to No personal attacks. Kind regards, jguk 17:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Did you know?
 Did you know has been updated and a fact from the article Hampshire County Cricket Club, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

Lulu
Please see Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration matter concerning Jguk
The Arbitration matter concerning Jguk has opened. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Evidence. --mav 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, what authority can you cite in support of your move of Wikiportal/Cricket? I have no firm opinion on the matter myself at this stage and don't mind where the page is located, but I noticed that your orignal move was highly controversial and created a major edit war. It is only fair to other editors that you provide clear evidence that your page move really does have community support now. Thankyou, Tannin 08:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Camilla
When you reverted you reinstalled the claim that Camilla was Charles's mistress. You may not have noticed the fact. That was the reason I reverted the anonymous user's changes back to my version. All the changes had been to do with calling her POW, to call her 'mistress' and a change from 'Scots' to 'Scottish'. The latter was the only change worth keeping. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Help with delete
jguk, can you please help me with the deletion of an article. I made a typo in the title of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Barlett and added it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_26 but for some reason it is not showing up. The corrected article now appears at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Bartlett

Thanks, Tintin 07:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks jguk. Changed it to a redirection Tintin 08:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

jguk,

Thanks for Bartlett.

Tintin 06:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Parthia
Jguk, please stop reverting the article on Parthia. You have made no contributions to this article other than changing the date notations multiple times, you have ignored my requests to present your case on the talk page, and you've violated the 3RR. Please stop, at the very least until the issue with the MoS has been resolved. siafu 13:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry to reply to somebody else's talk page notice, but he hasn't actually violated 3RR. violet/riga (t) 13:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , and .  I count 7, all exactly the same edit, and 5 are noted as "rv" in the edit summaries.  I'm not referencing 3RR to be intimidating, and I have no interest in presenting this in the same fashion as the ridiculous arbcom case against jguk.  There are, however, 7 reverts (way more than 3), and it certainly goes against the spirit of 3RR. siafu 13:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You've missed the fact that the 3RR is only violated if there are more than three reverts within a 24 hour period. violet/riga (t) 15:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm just asking for a ceasefire. I'm not trying to make a case with the ArbCom. siafu 15:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * violet/riga acts as Jguk's legal counsel and mouthpiece. Sunray 07:28, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
 * As I would for you if you were falsely accused of a 3RR violation. violet/riga (t) 07:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

This is starting to be a little ridiculous; I'm hearing from multiple users just the not the user in question, the one whose talk page this is. If either of you (Sunray, Violetriga) feel the need to continue this discussion, I invite you to use my talk page so that we can leave jguk's alone pending a response from thus-far silent colleague. siafu 14:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Vacuum cleaner
You said on Talk:Jesus:"This would be confusing - it would also make each year look like a vacuum cleaner model" Which is certainly the best comment I've read on Wikipedia yet. Thanks for eliminating my WikiStress. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

RfAr
Please note that a Request for Arbitration has been opened regarding the prefixed style NPOV dispute, the RfC which was opened with respect to my account, and personal attacks made and restored by certain parties. I have named you as an involved party and therefore I am notifying you of this RfAr in order that you may respond accordingly. Whig 12:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to know if the idea of infoboxes for cricket teams has been proposed so far. In my view, they are a must. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 10:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Cricket
What I mean is changing to. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Moves of cricket pages
Why have you moved the Cardiff UCCE and Bradford/Leeds UCCE pages? Have you seen something about them being renamed? If so, what? And also if so, that wouldn't change the names they played under in old games. Finally - can we have solidi in page titles, I thought they mucked something up, which is why I went for Bradford&Leeds in the title. Kind regards, jguk 11:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Check out MCC Universities website for names, etc. As to the dates, I'm not sure which is why I stopped and waited for some comment.
 * A / is allowed in the name. See here and here. Bornintheguz 14:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Cricket Tables
I've seen you tagged the redirects for the pages you moved for speedy deletion. Problem is, there's still loads of pages pointing to them and without the redirect these will all go red. Please point these directly to the correct place before nominating again, or leave the redirect in place.

I've reverted the to the redirect for now. -- Mgm|(talk) 18:43, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please use in the future to explain your reason for speedying. :) Mgm|(talk) 19:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Portalspace
Hi, I was looking over the comments from a couple weeks ago (seems like I always miss interesting discussion by a few days!) and I'd like to know what's going on with the portal space and the links to the portals getting added to the main page. Any progress on that? Anything I can do to help out? Let me know! Thanks. --Spangineer ( háblame ) 19:23, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I don't know any developers... but what's the problem with just "creating" the portalspace by moving the portals into it, like the Cricket portal? --Spangineer ( háblame ) 16:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Cut 'n' paste moves
Hi, jguk. Can I just check, when you moved Korath's ugly decision to move the cricket portal into wikipedia: space, did you just cut and paste it? If so, that needs to be fixed by an admin... I'm happy to do it, but I just need to check that I need to. Cheers, smoddy 22:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. :/ It's going to be a headache, as I have never done one of these before.  I shall do it in the morning (before 11, of course!).  Cheers, smoddy 23:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cricket
I can't find the exact reference now, but I believe the use of subpages for template transclusion on articles is discouraged.

And frankly, I doubt articles for single cricket matches is a very good idea. That would set precedent for football and basket ball matches. Isn't there a way in which you can structure such article so you can simply use pointing to a subarticle on a certain club or season to interconnect everything? In fact, can you tell me why you find this method of transclusion better? Mgm|(talk) 21:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Cricket categorisation
Hi. I'm just one of those pedants who likes to see every article in a category. I tried finding an appropriate category for your new cricket articles, however your new category created suits perfectly. Keep up the great contributions. -- Longhair | Talk 09:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Admin criterion
Hi there! You wrote that you oppose my RFA because I haven't helped with a featured article. Well, I can't argue with that; it's a reasonably fair criterion, and while I've written a Signpost story and part of official policy, I haven't done anything related to FAC. However, may I ask you something - I've noticed there are presently about a dozen nominations for adminship, and you've voted on three of them. Does that mean you haven't seen the others yet? Or is there a meta-criterion to when your criterion applies? Or am I missing something? This is not meant as criticism, it's just that I don't understand it, and I'd like to. Yours, Radiant_* 17:03, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up, and it's an opinion I can respect. However, I would appreciate it if you were to vote on all open nominations, out of a general feeling of fairness. Unless that would be a lot of extra work for you, that is. Yours, Radiant_* 18:53, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate what Radiant just said; your admin criterion seems to be rather selectively applied, unless I too am missing something. I'd also like to state for the record that I deeply disagree with the entire concept of it, as being about as orthogonal as it'd be possible to get from a sensible measure of someone's suitability for adminship (if you were inviting comment on that, too, as opposed to whether it'd been "correctly applied" in each case). Alai 18:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Pjacobi
This is a wise criterion, but like you yourself I wouldn't like to see it as policy. I don't disagree with your judgment, that I've not contributed enough to meet your criterion (I've had a very, very minor involment in Tamil language and its FAC discussion). --Pjacobi 18:38, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)


 * Like Radiant, I'd prefer you vote on all open RFA nominations rather than being selective. Even though I disagree with your criterion, it is fairly easy to judge whether or not one has passed it. And since open nominations last 7 days, I'd suggest that you set a certain specific time each week and go through all of the nominations on a regular weekly basis. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you have not done so, to make it even easier, you might want to create user boilerplate subpages for yourself too. I'll even help you if you don't know how. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA
Hello,

I see that you gave an opposing vote to Zocky. I just wanted to bring to your attention his work on Margaret Thatcher, where he did some crucial work. E.g..

Thanks for your time. --Dejan Cabrilo 19:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. On reflection though, I don't think these edits are unrelated to the final push towards getting FA status for the article - and, whilst I do not wish to denigrate what are clearly useful edits, they are not substantial in the context of the article as a whole. I have decided the fairest way to apply my criterion is strictly (and without reference to personalities). I will keep my vote as is. I also note that it is unlikely to make much difference in this case. Kind regards, jguk 20:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

templates
User:SimonP is up to his old tricks over templates and categories. He has now proposed deleting Template:Crowns on the template for deletion page. Going by his past antics on Category:Westminster System and Template:Commonwealth Realms he's trying to delete a template that pulls all the articles on the topic together, then he'll start subcategorising all the articles and we'll end up with a complicated, user-unfriendly mess of a category. Your opinions and observations would be welcome. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 21:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Jguk, thank you for your vote of confidence on my recent successful RFA, it was much appreciated. I will work to demonstrate that your trust was well-placed. Fawcett5 19:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

opinion
I know I've already mentioned this but your opinions are earnestly sought on |Template for deletion:Crowns. To put it simply, there were various lists on crowns and state symbols buried on files, hardly touched, and full of unwritten articles. I created a series of I'd say thirty articles on crowns, types of crowns, crown jewels etc, at considerable time and effort. I created a provisional template to link the articles together, which I planned, once I had all the information in place, to separate into a series of templates as there was too much information for one large one.

SimonP, who has been waging war on templates for ages (usually as a minority of one, through he usually forces his opinion on pages - such as his deletions of the Template:Commonwealth Realms from articles on Commonwealth Realms - by wearing people down on the issue) nominated the template for deletion. While some users have praised the template for creating a workable themed group with a visual unity via the template, a couple of people are determined to delete the template and use their beloved, hideously ugly, lists, the same lists that had proved to be a dead end for all these articles before.

The antics of SimonP makes me wonder why bother doing any serious work here, when all one get is attempts by a small number of people to replace professionally laid out information by visually unattractive, frequently complicated and because of the ease of edits, perrennially inaccurate long lists. Sorry for revisiting the issue, but given your extensive work on royal pages I am very interested in hearing your views on the matter on the TfD page linked above. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 21:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree. What I did was to create a draft template for all the articles so that I could work on them as a block. Then as a clear set of groupings emerge, I have been splitting bits off. I have created two smaller templates already. The plan was then to move the Crowns Jewels bit of what is left to a separate template and keep the individual crowns together. I kept the British ones separate because they are somewhat complicated - through part of the British crown jewels some are exclusively associated with the monarch of England, some the monarch of Great Britain and some the monarch of the UK. It would be misleading, for example, to imply that the State Crown of George I has any link to the UK when not only did it not have any, it was actually sold before the UK came into existence, and has only recently returned to royal ownership. So rather than have (England), (Great Britain) and (United Kingdom) after different crowns, or the factually wrong (UK) after them all, it made more sense to separate them by chronology under a heading that covered both English and British. But SimonP, as part of his ungoing issue with templates, jumped the gun before I had a chance to finish the layout. And I could not not use the template even in its draft form or else most the articles would have been orphans.

Thanks for the comments. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 23:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tax avoidance
jguk, would you write a stub for Tax avoidance? In today's featured article, you changed tax avoidance to tax avoidance with the summary "This is completely different." However, Tax avoidance still redirects to Tax evasion. If you would write at least a short paragraph explaining the general concept, that would be helpful. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 02:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The article on tax evasion discusses the distinctions between tax evasion, tax avoidance, tax resistance and tax mitigation. Quite why tax resistance has its own substantial article, but the others redirect to tax evasion.  In an ideal world, they would have separate articles, but the composite one does the job reasonable well at the moment.  (Congratulations, btw, on getting CT on the main page!  And apologies for never getting my comments in.  I've still got my manuscript mark-up from January somewhere...) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Admin criterion again
Hi there! I thought some more about your admin criterion and would like to share my opinion... basically, you assert that people who write an FA deserve to be admins, and consequently cast a support vote. I think that's a good reason to support people (and as you say, it's not intended as policy); it's certainly one of the more objective reasons I've heard.

However, you're also inferring the opposite, namely that people who have not written an FA do not deserve to be admins, and consequently cast an opposing vote. I think there's two things wrong with this... first, there are other things people could have done to deserve adminhood, such as stub sorting and RC patrol (in fact, anyone heavily involved in cleanup is likely to become a good admin and likely to not have written an FA). And second, an oppose vote is rather harsh since it subtracts four support votes, and for most people, getting four or five oppose votes means they're out of the running. For other people, it often turns out that yours is the only opposing vote, amidst 20-30 supports.

In other words, by two pennies would be that it seems fairer to abstain, rather than oppose, for people who haven't written featuring stuff. Of course that's entirely up to you, but I felt it worth mentioning. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 07:50, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Riot of 1879
Congratulations on getting it to FA. Is there any thought of The Ashes going the same way soon? Don't you think that The trophy section should go immediately after the The obituary - it seems a bit out of order as it is now - Ian 14:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)