User talk:Jrleighton/archive1

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:


 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Renaming List of largest suspension bridges
I saw your comment, but I don't understand it. What name do you want to rename the list? List of longest suspension bridges is unacceptable, because this is not how suspension bridges are ranked. They are ranked by the length of the main span. List of largest suspension bridges by lenght of main span is possible, but seems like a pointless change. It is common to call a suspension bridge "larger" if it has a longer main span. Typically, that means that the cables are bigger, the towers are higher, the foundations more massive, etc... Any other way of comparing suspension bridges leads to problems. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes  ~  -- Samuel Wantman 17:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Malta
hi! please consider checking out the new Malta-related_topics_notice_board.. Srl 03:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Irish Republic
Contrary to your claim, paved the way is not POV. It is an accurate historical reference. Prior to the Irish Republic the political aspirations of the vast majority of the Irish people was potentially met by home rule within the United Kingdom. The existence of a theoretically self-governing republic marked a substantial change in attitudes. It established a principle for self government that went far beyond home rule and into the realm of full independence. The principle it established was then reflected in the dominion status of the Irish Free State, which was a dramatic step up from the home rule previously desired and on offer. So the republic unambiguously paved the way for the the IFS that followed. It is not by any means a POV term, merely an accurate historical expression of how theoretical independence bred a demand for independence and an unwillingness to accept anything less, whereas lower offers would have been acceptable before the creation of the Irish Republic. FearÉIREANN 07:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Find the rest of the Singapore community!
Yeap, you can find us in these pages:


 * Singapore portal
 * SGpedians' notice board
 * Singapore Collaboration of the Week
 * Singapore-related topics
 * Category:Wikipedians in Singapore

Do leave your name at the notice board, and thanks again for making wikipedia your online abode! You would like to drop a message at the board. :) --Terence Ong Talk 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

party formation
The bit about party discipline and alternative parties seems correct to me. It should be put back in. Dinopup 01:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

European Union
I noticed you put disputed on te article on the European Union. Perhaps you could consider looking for a consensus with out putting that tag on the article? Certainly the dispute on whether Cyprus is a European country is relevant and even disputed, but on the whole the article is very balanced. Putting this tag so prominently would suggest (incorrectly), to other readers that the entire article is disputed.

I think the dispute can be resolved without the tag, as its a matter of formulation more than anything, and consensus should be easy to find. Removing the tag would signal to other users that most of the article is in perfect order, so I'd appreciate if you'd remove it.

Thanks and cheers, The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 13:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the best possible other option is to put Disputed-section on there, which isnt very accurate but would already be an improvement. To my knowledge there are no tags for minor disputes, which makes sense because they are usually resolved without necessarily putting a tag on the page.
 * Ah, indeed! I see the dispute on European Union has also been resolved. This is exactly why I thought a tag might be a bit too much :-)
 * Thanks for considering it & cheers! The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 09:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian Defence Force
Why are you not responding regarding this mess? This was acted upon by two people when no consensus was reached. Please see Talk: Norwegian Defence Force &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

France population growth
I saw your edits at the article France. You say that the UK has more inhabitants than France. This is not true. All sources agree that France has more inhabitants than the UK. Check the 2005 World Population Data Sheet published by the Population Reference Bureau, check also Eurostat 2005 estimates. None of these estimates actually include French overseas départements and territories, which add 2.5 million people to the French population, so that in early 2006 the total population of France is 63.5 million people (metropolitan France 61.0 million), while the UK population is somewhere around 60.2 million.

As for future predictions, I believe the reports you read were based on previous projections that had been done before the 2004 French census. Before the 2004 census, it was estimated that France's population would grew by only 3 to 5 million in the next 50 years. However, the returns of the 2004 census have shown a much higher population increase than had been anticipated. Already in the 2 years before the census the French statistical institute INSEE had become aware of the increase in births. Check this 2003 BBC article for instance. Still the returns of the census surprised everybody at INSEE, and new projections for the future were made. It seems an increase of 15 million in the next 50 years is now a reasonable scenario. There were many articles in the international press who reported this, you have apparently missed them. Here are two examples: EU Business and Newsweek. Figures listed in the article France are government figures reported by Le Figaro. I am adding references now, which I hadn't done earlier since I though it was an uncontroversial and well-known fact. Apparently not. Hardouin 01:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Combat Ration" vandal...
Mr. Leighton,

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, especially the insider stuff, protecting and banning, etc.

Yesterday you protected "Combat Ration" from anonymous users. Our anonymous user apparently set up an account, "Known Wikipedian", and is continuing his curious vendetta against the French army's victualling service.

Besides constant reversion, what does one do?

Mitchberg 17:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Andrews Air Force Base
Regarding your edit here, no information was removed except a paragraph that had nothing to do with Andrews Air Force Base. Furthermore, edits don't have to be discussed on the talk page, and using that as a foundation for reverting an edit without actually examining the edit itself is rather irresponsible. -- tomf688 {talk} 05:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If I came off as negative, it is because your comments "that excessive editing didn't look like it was discussed on the talk page first" came off as overly bureaucratic and condescending toward me. Irresponsible was probably a bit heavy-handed a word to use, and I apologize if you took offense.  As for Andrews Field, I am not too concerned with removing the information on the landing strip since it doesn't seem to be notable in the first place.  Finally, remember that administrators are just regular users with a few extra abilities; I hope you would respond so thoroughly to any user. -- tomf688 {talk} 05:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandilism
Your vandilism on the EU Enlargement article was very amusing, and yes, I did get a good laugh. But seriously, I had no idea that you were so unprofessional. Thankfully, your edit was promptly reverted. In the first place, that tag is a joke. And you do realize, I'm not the one who created it nor the only one who uses it. One last thing : if you want to respond to what I just said, you respond on this page ; you don't go to my user talk. –Aquarelle 12:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * User Aquarlle seems to be irate about something I have allegedly done. Do you have the right person ?  Charges of vandalism and the tone of this message is such that I have doubts.  Please reply ! :-)--jrleighton 13:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Im guessing this? The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 13:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It must be that. OK.  Perhaps it was naughty or foolish to link the reference to user Aquarelles user page - if this has caused offence, then apologies are here offered in full.  However, there was no vandalism.  The Canada thing was added as it sounded like such an interesting proposition that I was hoping others would add detail to it - such as those supporting the (now discredited?) feeling of a potential westwards expansion.  Like most people, I take what I read in Wikipedia in good faith unless I have good reason to doubt it - Aquarelles belief in Canada in the EU I took at face value.   Alas, what was intended to smoke out further information on this issue, has been seen to be vandalism.  It was never vandalism.  A message for Aquarelle - in future, please remember the Wikipedia recommended 4 stage method for dealing with vandals...a charge of "you vandal" as stage 1 is a little stong...particularly when there was certainly no vandalism in fact.  Let's leave this here - lessons to learn all round perhaps.--jrleighton 13:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Voilà. It wasn't so hard for a third-party to find, so I wonder how this recent edit slipped the mind of M Leighton.  To his credit, though, he does edit wikipedia fairly often (much more than myself at least).  –Aquarelle 13:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It didn't "slip my mind". Please do not be so presumptious as to suggest that I cannot recall my editing. What I do express bafflement at is accusations of vandalism when I have not done any.--jrleighton 13:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that you must have forgotten your edit because you asked me why I accused you of vandilism. I don't know what on earth I could have been referring to besides this particular edit, which you had very recently made, and the only one which involved a reference to myself, and even within the particular article that I mentioned. Don't be so offended that I came to this conclusion from your stated lack of knowledge of this very specific situation.

If you need, as you stated, to take "a few weeks to cool off," then be my guest. No personal attacks have been made against you; at least none of the level of making a public joke of you (yes, I am referring again to your edit on the EU Enlargement page).

You can not honestly tell me that your edit-in-question was a serious addition to the article! You mentioned me as an example! Even if you were trying to improve the article, you haven't any evidence that I actually support such an absurd idea, except of course in the satire of my own user page.

Lastly, let us please continue this conversation on your talk page. Just for the sake of clarity! It's much too confusing when you write one response on your own page, then go to mine to write something else. You have repeatedly done this with the other concerns which were posted on your talk page before this one. No, I am not an expert on wiki-etiquette nor protocol nor anything of the liking, but for the sake of clarity, I just propose we keep this conversation on one and only one page. –Aquarelle 18:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are misrepresenting many of the issues here. In all honesty you (Aquarelle) are the one who has the hot head and needs to cool off (not me). You have been seen to be twisting what is written to suit your own ends.  I will not debate with you any longer as I do not think that you are being honest with either me or yourself.  End of story.  Goodbye.--jrleighton 00:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As you wish. I hope that you have learned from this experience that future edits may require a little bit more effort than what we have previously seen.  You may also want to read a bit about what personal attacks are.  When I tell you that I find your edits to be poorly written and such, it's not really personal (or at least it's not meant to be).  Nor is it personal when I specifically refer to things that you have said or done.  However, this could be taken personally.  –Aquarelle 06:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Gordon Brown's artificial eye
Hi - I noticed you added a relevant category to the Gordon Brown article. Do you have a good source for his eye being artificial, or was it based on the article text? Thanks. --Cedderstk 17:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)