User talk:Jtdirl/Archive 17

Prayers of Saints articles
You wrote very sharp things about the presence of prayers introduced by those guys of Wikiproject Saints. I'm glad that there's someone who thinks the matter like me. I think the matter, however, will never be solved, mainly 'cause Christian people is not absolutely capable to understand the "propaganda" and "instruction" value that prayers show when read by other people: for them they're absolutely normal, even in an encyclopedia. They will find all the captious arguments of this world to justify and defend their presence here ("If Muhammad cartoons are, why prayers cannot?" they replied me, for example). What I ask you is: is there a way to start a poll and decide about the matter outside the arena of the Project, which is clarly Christian-biased, maybe with help of equilibrate administrators? Ciao!!! Attilios

Easter Rebellion
In reverting my edit (it was me although I forgot to log in), you say: "some rebels are elected. This lot weren't." Surely a rebellion is an action against an elected government? I checked out the Rebellion article in Wikipedia and I can't see any mention of rebels who were elected. Can you give me some examples?

btw, can you tell me is there a way to retrospectively put my name on an edit that I made? I'm still feeling my way here.

Scolaire 08:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Devin79
Hi, can I ask you, in your capacity as administrator to do something about User:Devin79 (IP address 68.35.182.234)? This user repeatedly reverts pages, especially the Provisional IRA page, to the version he likes best, regardless of all the work that is lost in the meantime. This wouldn't be so bad if his contributions were any use, but they are just pushing what he believes to be a republican viewpoint. (In fact he knows so little about the situation that he can't even get the propaganda line right. Lapsed Pacifist would be very disaproving!) When questioned about sources, he makes them up and when they are checked and contradicted he responds with personal attacks. See the talk page at PIRA for eg's.

Most recently he wrote on the Henry McDonald (Observer journalist) article that this catholic and former republican activist was a loyalist paramilitary supporter. Maybe he dosn't like the fact that McDonald criticises the IRA. Anyway, completely aside from the innacuracy, there is a legal issue here, as that charge is libelous, should McDonald have seen it and would have been very embarrassing for wikipedia.

So long story short, I'd like to see this guy get action taken against him, whether its banning, or whatever process Lapsed Pacifist (who at least knew what he was talking about) went through or whatever you think best.

Cheers, Jdorney 20:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems with a new user
Hi, I'd like your help or advice on how best to deal with user User:Fluffy999. He's contributed some great, detailed stuff on German espionage in Ireland during WWII. The problem is that he tends to overreact to any edits I make (see User talk:Fluffy999 and Talk:S-Plan).--Damac 09:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your intervention. The user (User talk:Fluffy999) turned on me after I changed a reference article on to the "King of England" (refering to George VI) to "British King" in the Seán Russell article. He reverted it back and has used this to claim I'm not qualified to contribute material to Wikipedia, but simply correct his grammar. You seem to be into royal titles and all that so maybe you could point out that king of England is wrong in this context. Thanks. --Damac 18:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The original term you used wasn't "British King" but "King of Britain"- the historical validity of such a term and your reasons for editing the article to such a state have yet to be revealed.

As I point out via the article footnotes the term "King of England" is the term used in original news reports of the time, and by the congressmen in question. Fluffy999 19:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I never used the term "King of Britain" in the Russell article. Please, please, please - do yourself a favour and read Talk:Seán Russell and have a look at this while you're at it.--Damac 19:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Damac caught in a lie again. Check my Talk page where he apologises for using the Phrase "King of Britain" and admits it was wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fluffy999 21:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jtdirl, the issue with Fluffy999 has got out of hand. After I proved beyond a doubt that he was the first one to use the term "King of Britain" (see my "reconstruction of events" on User talk:Fluffy999], he's now convinced that I have manipulated the edit summary pages on the Seán Russell and Seamus O'Donovan articles. Who should I approach about this? The guy has definately got a few screws loose. I've had a few run ins with people in the past (including your good self) but this just baffles me!--Damac 22:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers, FÉ!


 * Hi, User:Fluffy999 is back. As his most recent "contribution" – Northern Campaign (IRA) – shows, he seems to be under the impression that it is enough for him to post up chunks of facts and extracts from secondary sources, rendered in chronological order, and to leave the copyediting, linking, etc., to others. He even says as much on the article's talk page. I'd appreciate a second opinion on whether it is permissable to post up such an amount of information from a single book on Wikipedia and to leave others to render it into an encyclopedia article. I'm not inclined to approach him directly about all of this after the last time. Thanks.--Damac 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

FÉ, read your message on my talk page and your very reasonable remarks to Fluffy999. Yes, I think it's best if I avoid contacting Fluffy directly as he seems to take particular offence when I point out basic Wikipedia conventions and standards to him. I have always given him praise where praise is due - and he has done some sterling work on Wikipedia. However, I maintain that he needs pay some issues more attention. Many of his articles are grammatically substandard, or consist of large portions of information extracted from a small number of books on his particular field of interest. He pays little attention to editing and believes that it is the job of other people to tidy up after him. What is particularly problematic is his naming policy. Only today has he come up with the following title: IRA Abwehr WW2. Of course, I can't do anything about it as he'll only go running around crying foul. A quick look at the article will alert you to my concerns about Fluffy's contributions. Another issue which I raised with him and which he rejects outright was my suggestion that he name uploaded images sensibly and use sentence case. Is it just me or do you see anything wrong with Image:Nazi-devils-horns.jpg, Image:FREE-STATERS-BOMBARD.gif, Image:EIREcapturedIRAborderINTERNED.gif? And apart from the naming problem, I have very strong suspicions that a lot of Fluffy's uploaded photo contributions are scans from copyrighted books.

As I said, I'm not going to bother communicating with him. He has insulted me in the past and accused me of all sorts of things. I've never encountered anyone like him on Wikipedia since I started contributing. He is a newbie yes, but I think it's high time for someone to tackle him on the points I've raised above.--Damac 19:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be the End of the problem then, unless you go back to following me around the wiki. Regarding your insults and accusations against me. Its ok to let them slide. I try to make my stuff well rounded, well documented, & interesting as I can. Yes I did deliberately choose an area of history which no one else had wikied, and yes some people will find it concerning to learn the details of the IRA & nazis but thats not my business. The facts are the facts.  I'm going to keep on publishing stuff about it so you may not bother looking at it if its offensive to you Damac. Fluffy999 20:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And so the vendetta continues. Media_copyright_questions & Copyright_problems/2006_May_24/Images Fluffy999 09:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Canadian Royal Family"
Any opinions on whether there exists such a thing as a Canadian Royal Family? See Talk:Court Circular Astrotrain 15:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi II
You raise an interesting issue that involves the disparity of names given to members of Iran's last Imperial Family. I was briefly on the former crown prince's website where it makes no use of an ordinal, from what I saw. However, some may argue that his name is in a format any commoner named after an ancestor may have. I personally think that the article should be at Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran. Such is a treatment used for various other heirs of deposed royal families. I can only go that far to suggest that because I have no other knowledge on Iranian naming practices. I will, however, tone down whatever POV content I can find. Charles 20:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC

Concepción Heredia-Rosas
Hi Jtdirl, it's me again. Would you care to check this out and tell me what you think? It appears that this article is a hoax. The woman in question does not exist outside of WP results and a few delusional forum postings by a guy claiming to be a viscount. They claim this woman is descended from Archduke Louis, a son of Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor. Archduke Louis appears to have died childless and an Anna Victoria alleged to have been his daughter does not exist as a Countess of Habsburg-Lorraine, as claimed. Charles 01:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi
Hey. I think that interview page is not that useful to be honest. It has a few points but it doesn't cover the whole story. I did not put anything "opposite" of what it said, it clearly did say that those groups were against Shah at time of revolution. The same groups are currently against the regime. What is your opinion and why did you think otherwise? -- - K a s h Talk 00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not revert sourced info. That is called vandalism and your revert tools may be deleted off for such usage -- - K a s h Talk 00:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right that this is not my area, but I'd be glad to take a look at the page. I'll leave some comments on the talk. Maybe just getting a(nother) neutral eye to look over the article will help matters. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I left some comments on the current disputes that I saw. As for criticism being added, it's hard to comment on that without seeing what is actually proposed, etc. I'm probably not the person to add that. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks 4 your msg. I will do my best. --BBird 20:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- - K a s h Talk 04:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I am not a "monarchist", you might want to look at WP:CIVIL before making any more accusations. -- - K a s h Talk 04:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't just give "last warnings", I did not remove "content", I removed your POV. You are trying to say one interview has full account of Iranian people's opinions? You must be joking, right? -- - K a s h Talk 19:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, you asked for opinion polls.. Well I am sure there are many but this one: gave:

Democratic Republic of Iran 22.50 % (728) while Kingdom of Persia 7.67 % (248)

(Percentages are wrong as they messed up the statistics by the april jokes thing). -- - K a s h Talk 19:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous royals?
Hi Jtdirl. What are your thoughts on this: Canadian Royal Family? It seems laughable to me. Has it any basis? --cj | talk 05:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Catholic_Unionist" Article
I left a couple of comments on the talk page (Talk:Catholic_Unionist) of this article and would be curious to hear your feedback since you were the last person to edit it. Thanks.

Cyde also blocked merecat
I see that you reverted Cyde's wrongful block of User:Morton devonshire. Please note that User:Merecat was also blocked by Cyde on the same basis.
 * For more info on the anon IP, see todays AN/I and User:Stbalbach/anontexan. Thatcher131 12:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII
Hi again. I noticed that you uploaded Image:Piusxiib.jpg. This is a very famous image of Pius and one that I doubt the truecatholic webiste owns the copyright to. However, if you can find the approproiate source data from them, I believe that I could write a fairuse rationale for that image and include it in the article. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This user found Bill Clinton the most fascinating person he ever met
Hmmm, interesting. Love to hear why on my talk page. Cheers! Fergananim 20:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Request to reopen RfAr #4
In light of recent sockpuppeting by a/k/a/  to violate the permanent ban on his editing of John Kerry, I've requested the fourth and most recent 'Rex' RfAr be reopened and if appropriate, the remedies re-defined and re-applied. As a prior petitioner of that RfAr, I'm notifying you here. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jtdirl
I am leaving because I feel that many of my contributions are being continuously undermined by a few individuals. It's come to a point where I can describe it as building a house on a fault line. After a while, it becomes harder and harder to rebuild. I have not yet decided whether I will leave indefinitely or if it will merely be an extended leave of absence. I feel though that I must stay true to my word and make myself scarce for a while. In the event that I do come back, I am undecided as to whether it will be under this name or another. I shall, however, leave my email link up. If I suddenly have a change of heart, I will let you know. Thank you. Charles 19:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no need to apologize for what you have not done. You have always responded in a courteous and very civil manner toward me, something that I very much appreciate. I have thought about ignoring the topics that sparked the dispute that led to my decision to leave, however, they are an integral part of the reason why I came to Wikipedia in the first place. I am still undecided on that aspect to be honest. I either take things wholly, or not at all. Contributing to some articles when I know I can contribute to more isn't my style. I try to invest little emotion in affairs that don't deal with people themselves (i.e. the articles themselves), but it is irritating to have individuals repeatedly troll my work and offer destructive comments for everything I do. Such I believe will continue whatever my decision. Charles 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Shah
I just thought it would be more clear to write king, but you make a very good point. Sorry about that. Also good job on bringing the article to a more NPOV state. Most of the Pahlavi articles on wikipedia read as a promotional page for the late monarchy and really need rewriting. Keep up the good work.. --- Melca 22:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert my edits without providing a reason.
That is rather rude. There was an edit conflict and a news item got lost. I immediately clicked to edit the item back in and found that there was another edit conflict... You had reverted the change that I had made. Please don't do that. --Mr. Billion 20:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

hello from Alex
I'm just checking in with old friends from Wikipedia and you are one of the old friends. If you want to know what I've been up to since I left the project in 2004, please read my message on Angela's talk page. Anyway, let me know how you've been. AlexPlank 22:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
What personal attacks have I made? 75.3.4.54 01:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/Cyde2
I thought, that you might be interested in the RfC I've filed against Cyde. Raphael1 10:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hey Jtdirl,

Thank you so much for the message of support. The Tara issue needs a boost and it is tough going these days.

You are doing amazing work here. I am trying to get my Brehon law group to look at the Wikipedia definitions of Brehon Law and Celtic law, so they can be better defined. It will be an exciting and challenging project.

All the best,

Vincent Tuathal 12:27, 9 May 2006

Go raibh maith agat!
Thanks for dropping a line; I really liked hearing your thoughts. As I always love good gossip feel free to drop same by me anytime - I'm not up for much else! Fergananim 16:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

His Majesty King Leka I of Albania:
Please do not vandalise the entry of the above; His Majesty is a King, whether you like it or not. He is not self-proclaimed and nor was his father King Zog. King Zog was elected by the people, ordained my God and possesed an aristocratic liage dating back to Skandebeg. It is also standard practice for exiled monarchs to be continue to be known as King and His Majesty. Do not let your personal anti-monarchist views deny someone their name. Really STOP it, I consider this vandalism! (129.234.4.10 22:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

Headgear
I am being WP:BOLD and working to improve the encyclopedia. Clearly not vandalism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead
In response to your warning template, go right ahead. Make my day. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Le baron
has just reverted my cleanup of T.E. Lawrence. (Removed "lieutenant-colonel" given that he retired and enlisted in two services under false names afterwards.) Could you bring down the hammer? Choess 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up (somewhat capriciously, I admit, as to what Australian generals should or shouldn't have their ranks on the first line) through May 2 all his contributions, and he's asking for unblock. I've left a long message at his talk page trying to explain things.Choess 05:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

re; re; bill
Thanks again for sharing that. I wonder if people with such aptitudes are common in such rarified circles, though somehow I doubt it. Certainly you have people like Dick Cheney who can also fairly hoover up data, but not have an ounce of Bill charisima. On our own side, the likes of Dev and Gerry Adams (to pick two at random) had or have similar intellectucal capacity, but in a rather more narrow manner, and again their public charisima could leave something to be desired beyond their devoted followers.

Its strange that this aspect of him - and indeed other leaders - is'nt picked up on by wiki; certainly the combination of insatiable intellectual interest and cabability, plus this brand of charisima, is not apparent from most biographys (of him or most others). Yet by their very position in society, leaders, of whatever tier, must have at least some capacity in these areas.

As a matter of fact, this one-on-one perspective of such people would be a damm interesting catageory in and or itself, in or outside of wikipedia. Not to mention the "how?" aspect; is it intrinsic, or if so, developed during life? A response to circumstances? A facade?

I would love to hear more from you on such issues, as I get the impression your profession has enabled you to have closer contact than most of us to such lofty personages. Frankly, I have seen enough of behind-the-scenes dramas to have a taste for more (plus with my present incapacity I can no longer be such an International Man of Mystery as formerly attempted!).Also, what you think of the Clinton presidency and its effects on the USA and the wider world (I for one will always be deeply grateful for his efforts for the North; what a shame the Northeners themselves have let the ball fall so gracelessly). But only if you want to! Cheers! Fergananim 19:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Further thoughts. Flip side of the coin would be the likes of Hitler who was charismatic en masse yet often seemed to be rather withdrawn in small company, or at least in crowded rooms. And of course he used whatever dubious gifts he had for the Dark Side. Or in our own times Gerry Adams can be very good in front of the camera and other 'managed' events, but he has never had the same support that fellow-travellers like Martin McGuinness have enjoyed.

At the end of the day, I guess it is the enneffible "X" factor. Thanks again for making me consider it! Cheers! Fergananim 20:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretender infoboxes
I have noticed the pretender infoboxes that you have put in some articles, I like them. That way, we shouldn't have too many edit wars over the status of certain people. Great job!!! Prsgodd e ss187 17:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Duke of Leinster
Hi, Jtdirl,

Duke of Leinster says the FitzGeralds arrived in Ireland in the eleventh century. I have read that they arrived in the twelfth, but not in an authoritative source. In fact, I don't know anything about Irish historical sources, so I thought you might be able to recommend a source to consult. Thanks (I realize this isn't all that important an issue, so if you can't think of a source off the top of your head just ignore this request). John FitzGerald 00:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Talk


 * Fergananim saw this note and gave some interesting information and references. John FitzGerald 21:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You're page is really cool! --Aeternus 16:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility
Regarding edits such as this: Please keep in mind that calling another user's behavior 'bizzare' or discussing their 'antics' is considered disrespectful, and thus not allowed by wikipedia policy. Our guidelines require that we discuss article content based on its own merits, and no the users that are editing. Please try to keep this in mind in the future. --InShaneee 15:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There simply is no excuse for 'bluntness'; it's disrespectful, and shouldn't be done. If you really have tried all avenues of discussion and the user refuses to comprimise, presenting evidence of this in an RfC may be an option; making accusations about their edits is not. --InShaneee 17:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He never complained about your language; I did. If you continue to be disrespectful, you will be blocked, simple as that. There is no exception to this policy. --InShaneee 18:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Be my guest, but that doesn't change the fact that you are not allowed to be abusive towords other users, regardless of your actions. --InShaneee 18:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is your last warning. Disrespecting me isn't going to get you anywhere, either. An admin's job is to enforce the policies of the wiki, which is precisely what I'm doing here. If you continue to be incivil, you will be temporarily blocked from editing. --InShaneee 18:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

AN/I
Notwithstanding that you employ the singular they repeatedly in your post, to my considerable chagrin :), I concur wholly in your comments apropos of InShanee, even as I have previously defended him against other criticisms with respect to his use of admin tools. Your remark that, Looking on their contributions page, it seems that InShaneee spends much of their time posting "incivility" threats (without even using templates) on user pages, taking offence at the responses and then blocking people for those responses seems well to encapsulate not only the diffs you adduce but also many of his edits.  My disapproval with his actions, I should say, likely stems from my interpretations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, viz., that each exists to facilitate the compilation of an encyclopedia, for which a collegial atmosphere is, in general, required; I see each, then, as effecting malum in se proscriptions, whilst other see each as effecting categorical, malum prohibitum-based proscriptions. IMHO, where a personal attack is essayed, it must be evaluated in the context of its disruptive nature; we are not creating normative guidelines of behavior simply in order that we should all be nice to each other, but, rather, in order that the project should not be imperiled. InShanee seems not to appreciate that (or perhaps to believe that a consensus exists for a different interpretation, which may be true; certainly many, amongst which number I count myself, look with disfavor on policies that permit admins great discretion, if only because an admin ought to act ministerially, as a servant of the community, in furtherance of consensus, rather than magisterially, as a policy-setter for the community), and appears content to enforce blocks where disruption is minimal. Irrespective of the fact that InShanee is right to suggest that one's making a personal attack typically reveals him/her to be intellectually infirm, insufficiently pacific, or wholly incapable of compromise, a personal attack needn't always to be dealt with in the fashion in which InShanee seems to treat PAs. Joe 20:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Chief Justice of Ireland
Hi Jt,

I have a minor, but bugging, question on the title of the Chief Justice after the Constitution of Ireland was enacted, see Talk:Chief Justice of Ireland. Djegan 22:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jtdirl
Someone left some very good advice on my departure page about avoiding the problems and just going back to fix them after. I am taking that it as good reason for me to stay around, but not on a deeply-involved basis. Sorry for the initial drama when I first announced that I wanted to leave. Charles 20:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

User:SiOfUmbar
Thanks for removing my Controvercy edit on Prince Harry's page. I added a note on the incidents page to ask an admin to remove the history there. I hope that's ok. 12:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Two misnamed royals
Hi Jtdirl;

Can you join the vote at Talk:Marie-Chantal, Princess of Greece and Denmark and Talk:Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin? They have been moved without discussion. Thanks. Charles 16:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! Charles 18:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggested move
Hi JTD, please see Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_12. I have an issue with what seems to be the popular current proposal, i.e. to create two categories, a category along the lines of "Cabinet ministers in the Republic of Ireland" and a supercategory "Government ministers in the Republic of Ireland" to include the former category along with junior ministers; as I've pointed out, this ignores the fact that at least in Ireland, "Cabinet" is merely an informal term for "Government". Your input would be welcome. Palmiro | Talk 18:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Prince Leka II
I concede to the naming but you have removed some valuable information regarding this person's birth and claiming of a posthumous award for his grandmother...Why? (Couter-revolutionary 19:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

No problem, I was did not change his title and have accepted the Wikipedia guidelines here...I also have told the person who did not to remove the correct info I have addeed! (Couter-revolutionary 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

New blocked template
Hello Jtdirl. I noticed you created, since the pagename happens to be on my watchlist. It seems to be redundant with and various other templates; perhaps they should be merged? // [ admin ] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is specifically for use for hardbanned users. No template fits that space so I created it. It isn't for use just for sockpuppets of blocked users. Bans are more severe and carry more repercusions than mere blocks. None of the templates that existed explained the repercussions of being banned rather than merely blocked. This one spells it out explicitly and is needed. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 00:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would prefer that this be merged into the sockpuppet template as a conditional possibility, which would simplify usage and organisation. I don't much care either way, though. However, a block and a ban are rather different; would not or some such be more appropriate? // [ admin ] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a different type of template. It doesn't simply say you are blocked as "x" but explains to both the user and visitors to the page the implications of being banned rather than blocked. (Put simply, a blocked user is entitled to edit their own page. A banned user cannot edit anything. A blocked user's edits may be reverted. A banned user's edits have to be reverted on sight. The templates in question don't convey anything much more than basic information. That simply isn't enough in the case of banned users. When they keep coming back the requirements of the ban have to be spelt out clearly and unambiguously. So a merger would defeat the whole purpose. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 00:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The content of a template can easily be switched on substitution using ParserFunctions; see a (slightly more complex) example at User talk:Pathoschild/Sandbox2. As I've said, I don't particularly mind if it's a seperate template; on the other hand, I think the current page title is problematic because it ambiguates between a ban and a block; not every blocked user is banned. // [ admin ] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you heard anything?
At least eight ambulances, escourted by Police, have whizzed by me heading for Patricks'. At least three were already there when I passed it an hour ago. Do you know whats going on? --Irishpunktom\talk 09:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Princes of Hanover, Dukes of Brunswick & Lunenburg
Hi Jtdirl;

Do you have experience with undoing sloppy moves? Shilkanni has made him- or herself very busy in the past little while moving all of the Ernest Augustus of Hanovers around. It seems that the present prince's page has been lost... ...or made entirely difficult to find. As I understand, at least one of the pages was under discussion for a move. Charles 17:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I found the present prince's page, but the rest is rather confusing. Charles 22:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Government Buildings
When I searched I couldn't fine a single citation of the government using Irish Government Buildings as a disambiguator; do you have examples? At any rate, Government Buildings is by far the more common name. I couldn't find any other notable buildings by the name in my admittedly brief search, but a disambiguator would definitely be a better option than using a contrived name. I changed one link, by the way, at Template:Irish governmental buildings - I wouldn't call that a nuisance to change. --Kwekubo 00:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretenders Ernst August
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) and constibute to the discussion there. I look forward to people assessing UE:should English be used in all these cases and how; would any sort of numeral be acceptable; what are the correct ordinals anyway; and Is there any other sustainable way to disambiguate these systematically. Shilkanni 10:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom
In order to make sure we get everybody's view is expressed, this is to let you know that the debate over whether the UK should be called a country is re-opened. You are invited to contribute. Talk:United Kingdom/Country, Kingdom or State DJ Clayworth 15:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr?
Hi, you seem to known your way around the MoS, is there somewhere that specifies that the subject of a biographical article should not be repeatedly referred to as Mr (Mrs etc)? Or is this something so basic that it doesn't rate a mention?--Peta 01:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:LeoXIIIcrown.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:LeoXIIIcrown.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fred-Chess 10:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Move of Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom
Morning Jtdirl,

Not sure if this violates WP:NC, but it just doesn't look right. Please let me know what you think. Have a great day...

Prsgodd e ss187 11:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock me
I am trying to edit one of my own pages - Hubert Green - but apparently have gotten caught in an AOL "wide net" block. It said you were trying to block someone named Sydstone. Thanks --Hokeman 19:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

RM
FearEireann/Jtdirl, you are wrong. There are guidelines regarding moves, and nowhere there is stated that moves without request are allowed only in exceptional circumstances. Rather, it's the contrary: moves are a part of editorial work, and ONLY if move is expected to be controversial, request is used. Your own words should be reversed to reflect that request to move is used on "extraordinary circumstances". It seems you, Jtdirl, have understood the policy in a wrong way. You should not try to impose yor own commands instead of those presented in WP policy. Marrtel 11:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello
I would like to make a complaint against a user, how do I do this? I asked already on Jdorneys page. Thanks Fluffy999 15:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, he's referring to me. This has arisen over my request that he pay more attention to the way he uploads images to Wikpedia. See User_talk:Fluffy999 for our discussion regarding same.--Damac 16:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Left word on User talk:Pedant hopefully he can assist in making this treatment stop or at least get it directed elsewhere. Fluffy999 16:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes: A New Proposal
Hey, I've noticed that you've been active on the Userbox deletion page, either strongly FOR or AGAINST the use of the new T2 for deleting userboxes. I have noticed that most of the community is strong in their opinions on this issue; for that reason, I created my own proposal which attempts to create a middle ground for the two groups, and finally get this debate settled once and for all. I welcome your input into the proposal, as well as your (non-binding) vote on the straw poll. Thanks! // The  True  Sora  01:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Pro-choice.
Your edits to pro-choice introduced unacceptable levels of bias, which is why two people so far have reverted them. Perhaps you would do better discussing your proposed changes in Talk before implementing them. Thank you for understanding. Al 05:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Sydstone
Please see my comments at User talk:Sydstone. Thanks. -- Tantalum Telluride 05:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Nassau
Hi Jtdirl;

Can you check this out? This user is unilaterally moving pages and changing around articles, mainly dealing with titles and most recently, with Nassau. Charles 05:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt
If I were a sysop and Pnatt came back again and started with the same business after his numerous day blocks, week block and month block- I would just deregister the account and block the associated IP permanently. Xtra 02:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Lang3
Why did you revert Template:Lang3? There are more Australians than irishmen on wikipedia. Plus the or, rather than the and, is more appropriate in that sentence. Also, when speaking about British articles people would also assume irish, it goes without saying. But Australia is in a different part of the world, and people might not assume at first that we speak british and not american english. It is basically more informative, and better for the template. And as i said before, or is the operative word required, not and. So i'm reverting back, if you feel the need to revert my edits in future please contact me on my talk page first. THE KING 07:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Time Out
OK. I have probably said most of what I was going to say on Aidan. I also appreciate that you stayed away from the discussion for a while. Naturally I don't agree with any name calling Aidan might do either. But he is not the only one. I was trying to point that out. It also started, as I was annoyed at the ongoing attention he was receiving, given that he has aleady been punished. I notice that it was you who banned him. Did you decide this all by yourself? This is not intended to be a trick question. I really want to know this process. You did come close to banning me over the Paisley article... Wallie 09:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I thought this to be the case. However, if someone is treated badly, as I felt I was, they don't forget easily. Kiand was on my case, even when I first joined Wikipedia, long before you came along. I didn't think you were confronting me, just backing Kiand. There were some others too, like Golbez, but their attitude changed. Kiand is still the same. MusicalLinguist is suggesting that I do an RfC on him, if I don't like it. That is not my style, and it hadn't even crossed my mind. I have never gone to "the Management" about my personal problems with someone, and never will. I am old school. I don't like snitches. I like to sort it out mano to mano. I am only discussing this as backgound, as I think he is your friend, absolutely not in any offical way. If I have compliants, it is invariably with a process, not a person. If one person is acting in a way I disagree with, I can guarantee others are acting the same way, and it is "unfair" (I was told that this word is forbidden in WP) to single out one person. Wallie 10:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:SchuminWeb
It seems that the template at the centre of this dispute belongs to the WikiProject Anti-war, and Schuminweb was alerting other members of the project to the TfD debate. This seems fairly legitimate to me, and is quite different from the usual situation where someone spams a list of previous voters on *fD debates. Of course, he probably should be advised to leave a message on the project's talk page instead next time. If you're still online, would you consider an unblock? --bainer (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoops
I saw your reply in the Morale section. Actually the Aidan case was not in my mind when I did this. You did say that people could get the wrong idea. You were right. It is a pure coincidence. It was actually triggered by a number of recent cases that I had observed. I thought it was an important issue. The Aidan case was an exchange between Kiand and me, triggered by the fact I was annoyed at him reporting Aidan's status all the time, even after he was banned, and seeemingly enjoying it. It has nothing to do with Morale. Wallie 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Pope
Wikipedia also operates on the be bold policy. There was nothing harmful about the chages I made. I only corrected what I saw to be inconsisten bordering. I won't change it back, but I just want to make that clear. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:SchuminWeb block
This user has agreed to stop spamming talk pages. I support unblocking based on this promise, but I won't do it over your objections, as the blocking admin. Whaddya think? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My issue
Here's my issue: What I've noticed is that you seem to take swift administrative action in areas where you are personally involved as an editor. To me, this looks like a conflict of interest, and therefore your impartiality as an admin comes into question, which looks like an abuse of admin rights. At least that's how I see it... SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Userboxes
JT, I know you are good at creating boxes but I get the impression you are busy these days ... I have one in mind I'd like to create but my ill-health will slow me down (besides, I'm a techno illiterate!). Could you point me in the direction of someone? Cheers, Fergananim 20:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit war
Your edit-warring on pro-choice has quite likely violated WP:3RR at this point. Frankly, your changes are POV and therefore rejected by an overwhelming consensus of editors. You have not been willing to discuss this in Talk, although a few of us have tried hard to get you to come to the table and discuss whatever specific issues you have with the current version. At times, you have been less than civil (by your own admission) and have even made statements that appear to be threats of admin abuse. I am not going to report you, although I could. I just don't think it would be productive to report without a warning, but this is your warning and I'm not giving you any more. Please, please, please stop doing what you're doing. We don't have to fight. We can discuss the content dispute calmly and come to a reasonable compromise. Will you come join us? Al 20:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

---

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Al 02:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Pro-choice
Please refer to WP:Vandalism. Tag abuse is also a form of disruption. -Severa (!!!) 21:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then, be sure to lodge the same complaint against GTBacchus and Alienus, too. -Severa (!!!) 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please. In fact, I'd insist on it. Al 05:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting website
http://www.johncollins.org/ml/2006-01/28-08:55/index.html

Fluffy misrepresenting your advice
Hi Jtdirl, You might be interested in Fluffy999's misrepresentation of your recent advice to me, which you can view on Media_copyright_questions. I don't believe you told me to "to cease & desist from tracking my movements around the wiki" (Fluffy's words). I was under the impression that I should avoid making any direct contact with the user, which I have. However, I raised legitimate concerns about his uploading of copyrighted images and took the appropriate steps (see Copyright_problems/2006_May_24/Images). Other administrators/users have also highlighted this with the user in question.--Damac 10:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely." Wikistalking


 * I will be seeking arbitration on this matter. Bad faith is suspected. Two clear examples of this can be cited. Behaviour which is effective "hounding" of me merely because I encroached on articles someone considers their personal property is disruption of Wikipedia. Fluffy999 11:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl I just db-authored every image ive uploaded to wikipedia. Many self made, many from research in the archives. Complete list below. Hopefully this will satisfy Damac and make him cease his campaign of baiting and harassment momentarilty while I get the arbitration process started. If you can suggest an advocate that is free, or someone who can take on an arbitration for this matter that would be great.
 * PIRA-longwar.gif
 * DAVID-ERVINE-BELFAST-COUNCIL-2006.jpg
 * AlbanMCGUINNESSsdlp.jpg
 * Nigel-DODDS-2006.jpg
 * AlexMASKEY-SINN-fein-2006.jpg
 * END-OF-PIRA-CAMPAIGN-IRISHNEWS.jpg
 * BBCTV-NORTHERNIRELAND-HEARTS&MINDS-MORTIFIED.jpg
 * Gerry-adams-private-eye.jpg
 * Adams-funeral-1970s.jpg
 * 2 BRITISH ATTACKS 1919 1921.jpg
 * 1 IRA OPERATIONS 1919 1921.jpg
 * Hume-trimble-NOBEL-PEACE-PRIZE.jpg
 * Hume-adams-debate-LIVE-TV.jpg
 * Trimble-paisley-1998-bbc-newsline.jpg
 * UDP garymcmichael.jpg
 * Ulster-home-guard-WW2.gif
 * VICTORY JIG 1940.jpg
 * Paisley-16 November-1984.jpg
 * Private-eye-9July1999.jpg
 * Nazi-devils-horns.jpg
 * GPO2.JPG
 * RUC-FALLS-ROAD.jpg
 * RHCshowOfStrengthBelfast.jpg
 * IRA-WARBONDS-1941.jpg
 * STRANDBOMBING-LUFTWAFFE1.gif
 * JohnnyADAIRgraffiti.jpg
 * Johnnyadair2002-releasefrom gaol.jpg
 * LVF-GUNS2.jpg
 * LVF-GUNS1.jpg
 * IRISH-NATIONAL-LIBERATION-ARMY.JPEG
 * BATTLE-OF-THE-BOGSIDE-HUMBER-PIG.gif
 * KERRY&1800SDUBLIN-PLANGREEN.gif
 * EIRE-NAZIHELMETS.gif
 * EIRE-MECHANIZED-TROOPS.gif
 * EIRE-COBH-BIGGUNS.gif
 * EIRE-AIRCORPS.gif
 * STRANDBOMBING-LUFTWAFFE3.gif
 * STRANDBOMBING-LUFTWAFFE2.gif
 * STRANDBOMBING-LUFTWAFFE1.gif
 * EIRE-UBOOT-NAZI-FUHRER.gif
 * PLAN-GREEN-DETAILS2.gif
 * PLAN-GREEN-DETAILS1.GIF
 * EIREcapturedIRAborderINTERNED.gif
 * EIREcapturedIRAborderINTERNED.gif
 * RUC & B-specials1941.gif
 * Eire&NIExecutedIRA1940s.gif
 * PIRA-onpatrolSouthArmagh.gif
 * Mortar2.gif
 * Mortar1.gif
 * PAISLEY-UDA.JPG
 * PlanKATHLEENSPOOF.JPEG
 * UVFmural2.jpg
 * 1986SinnFéinArdFheisWALKOUT.jpg
 * MongahanDublinBombings1974.jpg
 * Poster61r.jpg
 * NI-SAOIRSE-GO-SAOIRSE-NA-MBAN.jpg
 * SemtexPIRADecommisioningIICD.jpg
 * Onguard.jpg
 * Magazine Fort.jpg
 * Plan-green.gif
 * RTEconfession.jpg
 * Sands-donaldson.jpg
 * Fru-scap.jpg
 * Nov2001.jpg
 * Ulster-Resistance.jpg
 * 39560643 frenchpeaslarge.jpg
 * 1974election.jpg
 * Brian nelson.jpg
 * Frank-Ryan-1944.gif
 * ODonovan-small.gif
 * FrankRyan-BrigadierSpanishCivilWar.gif
 * BrigadierFrankRyan-1936.gif
 * Seán-Russell-1940.gif Fluffy999 15:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio
Hmmm. Someone has been copying the format of your user page for his user page. Actually, I have to confess. It's me. Hope you don't mind.

Kind regards,

Walle.

Wallie 19:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This damn bot
I uploaded the image correctly following all the usual rules. Yet somehow when it appeared the info was gone and this godddamn bot had tagged it as uncategorised.
 * Which image would this be? The only recent upload that OrphanBot's notified you about is Image:Alexyugo.gif, which, according to the edit history, never had a copyright tag.

Instead of deleting images would someone delete this damned bot? It regularly states that images with correct information doesn't have the information there in black and white, leaves messages on pages telling people that they are responsible for uploading images they never uploaded (it held me responsible for an image simply because I corrected a spelling in the file months earlier) and just gets on everyone's nerves. Accurate and reliable it ain't. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 21:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could go back to the old way of deleting no-source and no-license images, with redlinks all over the place when admins got tired of removing links to images, and people bitching about not being given a chance to fix the problems with their images. --Carnildo 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis
I think it's a wonderful idea! It really looks good too. I think it ought ot be implemented as a standard practice. Charles 01:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw your note on Charles' page about the synopsis boxes (synopses??). The look great, and it is a good way for browsers to get the important facts quickly. Once again, great job. [[image:smiley.png|30px]] Prsgodd e ss187 02:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You should bring this up on Village Pump (proposals) if you haven't already. GarrettTalk 12:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw one on Bertie Ahern. I think its a good idea, but doesn't look well where it is located.  Perhaps it should replace the intro para on all articles, should be called 'Synopsis' (linked for defn), rather than 'Synopsis of article'.  I agree that it is best discussed on Village pump first, but I don't ever go there so I wouldn't have seen it then. --Rye1967 22:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Davidtimble.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Davidtimble.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Canvassing
What is canvassing and can you please provide a link to the decision? —David618 22:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Canvass
Had a question for you. I think the template could use a link to the mentioned Arbitration Committee decision. I looked for one (under the concept of "be bold," I was going to add a link to the decision myself), but I couldn't find it. I found these proposed policies &mdash; No talk page spamming, Wikipedia:Vote stacking, and Survey notification &mdash; but they weren't formal policy. Not questioning what you wrote, but policy cites probably would help the gravitas of the template. Your thoughts? &mdash; WCityMike (talk • contribs) 00:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Spam is close, but it's guideline-strength and the specific section is weakly worded ("some Wikipedians believe that you should"). &mdash; WCityMike (talk &bull; contribs) 00:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've altered the wording to reflect the various cites I've dug up here and the one ArbCom decision Ryan Delaney, one of the ArbCom clerks, came up with. If you disagree with my action, drop me a line and let's work it out amiably.  Not looking to work at cross-purposes to you, just to make sure we're representing policy correctly. &mdash; WCityMike (talk &bull; contribs) 22:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your signature
Could you please remove your Image of Ireland from your signature? It violates WP:SIG, there are some users who would burn you alive for it due to some technical server thing I don't pretend to understand. Thanks! T e  k e  18:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I have no issue with it; just a consideration.  Happy editing, and thanks for helping with the East Timor naming controversy.  T  e  k e  18:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh my...
Check this out. Someone needs to be told to stop moving articles without discussing them, rather than citing incorrect "simplicity". Charles 19:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha
Hi Jtdirl;

Can you take a look at the following: User_talk:Cfvh, User_talk:Deb and Talk:Augusta_of_Saxe-Gotha. I made note of the situation at Duchess Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, which was moved to the proper form within guidelines. Charles 19:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please
On Pro-choice, you should really know better than to edit war and accuse other editors of vandalism. I expect that kind of shit from POV pushing newbies, but you've been around, what's the deal? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, that was all very interesting, and I understand your frustration. Now, what would it take to get you to make one specific suggestion on the talk page?  I don't think it's vandalism to remove tags that the tagger refuses to explain.  I'd like to see for myself what happens when a serious editor tries make an improvement to the article.  Your job is to pick one. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jtdirl, how in the hell are those tags supposed to make that situation any better? The most they could do is get outside attention - well here it is.  I'm listening to you.  Give me a specific suggestion, and let me try to implement it.  Like "neutrality of structure" - what does that even mean? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Even just a link, to where you were ever specific and constructive, would be great. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it help if I beg? Please, please, please, pretty please, just name one specific improvement that I can please make to that article, please?  I'm already compiling a list of sources, please give me some input.  I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing how pissed off you are at Alienus.  If you won't make a suggestion, I have to assume you haven't got any. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I'm getting to work on your laundry list now. Like you say, some editors have been burned. Maybe what the article needs is some fresh blood, so here I am, fresh and bloody from the userbox debates, and eager to work on something in the article space. I've worked with Alienus in the past and we have something resembling an understanding, I think. Maybe we can work it out. Thanks again for your detailed critique; it's very helpful. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Death threat
Jtdirl, here it is: Naturally, I removed it from my talk page, but this is the edit. I'm pretty sure the user is a sockpuppet of User:Dzoni, who insulted me before (called me an idiot, a traitor, etc.). Thank you for looking into it. --dcabrilo 00:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mogao bi da skratis jezik malo da ne bi radila kama - Serbian
 * You should shorten your tongue or a dagger will work - literal translation
 * Shut up or I will cut you up with a dagger - meaning

Hmm... I'm not sure if you read my previous message already, but that's the translation. Yes, a clear, non-ambiguous, death threat. No other Cetnici's contributions seem to be a threat, no. This edit, pretty much states that he is User:Dzoni, ("Don't worry, I'm here, not going anywhere", over his last admission that he is a sockpuppet, using User:Jamal Curtis). --dcabrilo 01:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jtdirl, actually, User:FrancisTyers already blocked him indefinitely for this (see the block log). --dcabrilo 01:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Pacelli.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pacelli.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello your input would be welcome
i was wondering if i could have your input on this article? --WikiWiley 03:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

re: icon on lang2
Good evening. I don't feel strongly about the icon one way or the other. I was just trying to bring it into line with the other "warning" templates in the same column of Template messages/User talk namespace. From what I could tell, the trend was against having icons for warnings at that level and I think there is a great deal of value in consistency in our escalation pattern.

But if you are convinced that this particular template deserves special treatment, I won't change it. It's not a template I have much experience with. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Augusta of Saxe-Gotha
Hi. Would you care to lend your not inconsiderable weight to the debate here, please? I would prefer to think that User:Cfvh is not another Arrigo, but I am beginning to wonder. Deb 19:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I invite you to utilise Usercheck if that is what you believe. Charles 19:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think you know what I meant above - obviously I wasn't suggesting that he is another sockpuppet. Deb 21:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

?
On your user page, where in the Democratic Prayer it says "the moral of Jimmy Carter", shouldn't it be "the morals"? — CliffHarris (- T | C -) 03:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Apal.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Apal.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thank you for blocking the user who vandalized my Talk page. Al 19:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Our Pal Bill
''Despite occasional political troubles, Clinton remained popular with the American people. In addition to his political skills, Clinton also benefited from a very skillful management of the US economy. Under Clinton, the United States had a projected federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969.[8] While Clinton, Congress and the private sector have all been given credit at different times, this economic success was a source of immense political strength for Clinton. He remained popular through and beyond the end of his terms in office.''

So, why then and now do so many Conservatives and Republicans hate him so much? Honestly, I truely don't get it and would appreciete a little leargas. Fergananim 00:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII
Hello again. I replied to comment on the talk page about the pictures. I support all the changes that you made to the captions and the photo that you added, but if possible, could you provide more source data for the image (the link that you gave isn't working for me&mdash;its coming up with a different picture). savidan(talk) (e@) 08:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

How is the Eva Peron article not nuetral?
I think you are the one who put a POV tag on the Eva peron article. If so, please specify what about the article you think is not neutral. -- Andrew Parodi 04:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you are an "outsider" in time and space from the Perons, perhaps you could redraft both articles: Juan Domingo Peron and Eva Peron. BTW see also Juan Peron's talk page which includes accounts from direct witnesses and a few references. There is a huge amount of historical material, like a hundred meter, or more, shelf space in any university library. Sure sources for the lacking citations and/or to balance the biased ones. 69.9.31.153 17:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User bear
Hi, I notice that you are using Template:User bear, which has been moved to User:UBX/bear. The link you are currently using is a cross-namespace redirect and will probably not last. Just wanted to let you know here, since your page is protected. — Mi r  a  16:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Iologo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Iologo.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TomFee.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TomFee.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 04:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

5 week block
You might want to explain yourself over at WP:ANI#Five week block for spelling change?. -- Cyde↔Weys 21:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Cyde beat me to it. In any case, even a cursory glance at the user's talk page reveals that this was not a five-week block for a spelling change; the user appears to have been very disruptive, and I'm sure that most of us think the block to be in order.  Joe 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Baron Trimble
I was sure the original was correct before your edit however, checking the UK parliament site it's pretty clear:

7 June entry:"Speakers List. L Trimble (M). B Harris of Richmond. •. Speakers, in no particular order. L Norton of Louth" this agrees with Dods parliamentary site and David Beamish's creation details: L Trimble of Lisnagarvey in the County of Antrim. Alci12 11:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)