User talk:Jtdirl/Archive 18

I can understand if you want to use it, but is it really necessary to put this around other people's request denials? --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are four reasons reasons why the template was inserted:
 * The block and unblock templates are designed to make a formal request. The two request granted and request denied templates are designed as part of that series to formally answer them and indicate a formal decision to the other formal templates.
 * Denied requests on their own were all too often missed in a page where there had been a lot of contributions. One user continually demanded a response not realising that among the hordes of messages, barely seen, was the response. A visual template ensures the decision is clear and visible to all and won't get lost in the scrum of debate.
 * In the past users who had their requests denied simply deleted the refusal and re-entered the unblock template. The low visibility of the denied message meant that was easy to achieve, because often many users would not have seen it. Inserting a formal template with a visual impact means that denied request is visible and less easy to delete, while also containing a do not delete message to the user.
 * Many users were deciding whether to grant or refuse a request without explanation, even though one was required. The template structures the message to state clearly and unambiguously (a) the decision, (b) the reasoning, and (c) a warning not to delete the decision.
 * Using the template removes the many deficiencies that were occurring with the non-template responses. As such it is important for the user being responded to and everyone else to be aware of the decision, why it was reached and a warning not to try to circumvent it by deleting the response. On every occasion where the template has been used the message has not been deleted, an improvement that seems to have stopped the earlier ungoing problem of deletions of unwelcome responses and the posting of another unblock me template. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You've got a good point. I will start using it in the future, at least on busy talk pages. I would still have preferred a note saying "hey, did you know about this template" rather than changing my posts, but I'm not hugely bothered :-). Maybe it should/could be moved to Template:Unblock denied, to be more specific about what it's actually denying? --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipsychics
I had a great laugh from your user page & had to say thanks. You're right, it always bugs me when anyone who informs anyone else of a vote is accused of "vote stacking". Apparently some people would rather keep votes secret so there will be fewer "wrong" votes to contend with... There really is such a thing as votestacking, but it involves sock puppets and you have to use your brain and examine the contrib history of voters...  apparently that's too much work for some. Cheers, Kasreyn 22:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

your credibility clearly seen
I should have guessed that you will prefer Władysław II Jagiełło as article name of that monarch, compared with "Jagiello". Would like to know how "Władysław II Jagiełło" exactly fulfills the NC in your understanding. I have seen your opinions earlier, and this strengthens my opinion of them. Concepts like disruptiveness and reactionary come to mind. Shilkanni 22:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We are voting on a replacement. The issue isn't that the current name does fit the NC criteria, but that the alternative most definitely does not. As to your attacks, some things never change. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 20:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Abortion Incivility
In response to your recent comments on Talk:Pro-life: 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!  MamaGeek  TALK   CONTRIB    17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion ... don't go getting into arguments about abortion on Wikipedia. Nobody is going to convince anyone else, and in the interim, it just creates lots of ill will. -- Cyde↔Weys 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, abortion is notorious on WP. Each page is highjacked by the extremists and woe betide anyone who actually tries to apply neutrality of language and accuracy. The fanatics will scream blue murder and revert to their POV-pushing every time. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 20:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you realize that these comments are themselves uncivil. Al 21:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot less civil than the highjacking of both pages by both sets of fanatics who push their POV and try to use the pages as propaganda to promote their POV agenda. Not everyone involved on both pages does that, but a lot do. At various times both pages have been highjacked by pro-lifers who added in anti-pro-choice propaganda. Right now it the pro-choicers who are doing the highjacking. That is why both pages came to be nicknamed the looney pages when I came here first, because each side when they got the change highjacked one or both pages to push their agenda, then when one side left the other side did the same, with NPOV editors and edits getting trampled in the warring. At various times users have talked about just deleting both damn pages and banning the topic from WP. Neutral versions of the article invariably get savaged by whichever side are doing the highjacking this time. It would be nice if you were as concerned about the agenda-pushing as you are about anyone daring to criticise POV edits as "uncivil". FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You are continuing to be uncivil. I understand that you're angry, but I'm asking you to express it in a way that is more acceptable. Al 21:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not angry at all. Nor do I believe in avoiding telling the truth. It needs to be said. It is not an attack on you, BTW. It is an attack on four years of behaviour by users on both sides on those two articles. The two articles are regarded as the Bermuda Triangle of Wikipedia, where NPOV rules go out the window as one side or the other bulldozes their viewpoint (coupled with a distorted interpretation of the other side) onto the pages. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 23:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Papal Pictures
Thanks for noticing that Pope Johns picture wasn't available. I'm currently searching for a free copy of the pope wearing the mozzetta. Is it already decided that all pope pictures should show the pontiff with the choir dress, or is it still only "tradition", so to speak?&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 05:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Devin79 -why not banned?
I apologise for bothering you with this yet again, but I' have completely run out of patience with this user. I realise you must be pretty bored with this user's vandalism at this stage, I am too. And its not just on Irish related articles, if you have a look at his contribs page. Today he has yet again reverted the PIRA page to include his nonsense. So why is he not banned?? Lapsed Pacifist was correctly banned for constantly pushing his own pov but at least he was well informed. He wasn't half as bad for messing up articles as Devin, who just makes up facts and continually reverts articles to try and get them included. I don't understand why, after so many temporary blocks and warnings, this guy is still allowed to keep editing. Jdorney 10:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

changes
I read ya, thanks for information. GoodDay 18:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox
Hello. A userbox you are using (Template:User LGBT interest) has been moved to user space per WP:GUS. The new link is User:UBX/LGBTinterest. The link currently being used on your page is a cross-namespace redirect and will not last. If you wish to keep your userbox, it is advisable to change to the new link. Thank you. — Mi r  a  06:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again. The above actually goes for your bear userbox as well. The new link for that one is User:UBX/bear. Sorry to bother you again. — Mi r  a  16:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Signature help
I was wondering if you could help me with a signature problem -- I'm trying to write an html sig like the one you use, but can't get my profile page to load it -- keep getting the message that the html is bad. My proposed sig is at User:Morton_devonshire/mysig Once it's formatted properly, what the procedure for getting it onto my profile? Thanks. Morton devonshire 22:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish medieval monarchs naming
Hi. I have proposed to move the following monarchs from their current, generally Polish-spelled names (with diacriticals) to the systematical English name, citing my general ground that English should be used, not Polish. Would you share your opinion at Talk:Bolesław I the Brave, Talk:Bolesław II the Bold, Talk:Mieszko II Lambert, Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks, Talk:Jan I Olbracht and Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Marrtel 19:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Robert Sieger
Just thought you should be aware of this, as you're mentioned. Right of reply and all that ... - Ali-oops&#9997; 07:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(Sheikh) Sadullah Khan
I happened across this article via its AfD nomination. Unfortunately, it was originally written in the "Islamic doggerel" style, which prompted some delete votes that don't reflect the minor notability of the subject. Actually, with something like 4 votes total, if you felt like voting "keep", that would push it that way, I'm sure. I've cleaned up the biographic article just slightly, but since I don't really know anything about its subject, I haven't done much.

That's not why I'm writing though. Rather, I thought of you in regard to the style/honorific "Sheikh". This honorific was used a bunch of times, as you see in aforesaid tone. In a number of articles, I've insisted on the removal of such honorifics, most often of "Professor". But in that case, it's easy to get the information without using the honorific; e.g. "Joe Blow is professor of so-and-so at State University". Or likewise with judges and stuff. "Sheikh" isn't so formally institutional; neither do I think that your whole "style infobox" is really appropriate for minor figures: in a long article, it's a nice addition, but for something small it gives too much weight to the matter.

My initial compromise was to take the honorific out of the lead sentence, but then call him "Sheikh Khan" in the next sentence, reverted to simply "Khan" thereafter. It's worth noting that he's addressed as "Sheikh", but hardly worth belaboring with a sentence of explanation. Do you have a better approach? LotLE × talk 08:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Eleanor of Aquitaine
Hello!

I have a question that is related to a historical event that I'm a trifle confused on.

I'm currently reading a book (not a biography) on Eleanor of Aquitaine--onetime wife of Louis VII and Henry II, mother of King Richard the Lionheart, etc.

I don't know if you're familiar with the politics behind this, so I'll just go:

Eleanor became the Duchess of Aquitaine at the age of fifteen, inheriting it instantly from her deceased father. Immediately she was wed to King Louis. Her duchy of Aquitaine was forced to pay homage to France, and fought under France, under Eleanor, who reserved titles of Queen and Duchess. After seven years of marriage with Louis she bullied the pope into annulling the marriage, at which point she was abducted and forced into a marriage with King Henry II. Okay, so here's where I'm confused:

So, Louis was never the Duke, I take it, because Eleanor remained Duchess, and Aquitaine paid homage, and being King of France, it was unnecessary to became Duke.

But when Henry married Eleanor, he, at some point, decides to make decisions as the Duke, without telling Eleanor, who did not acknowledge him as Duke. When Henry starts making decisions as the Duke, however, even though he already is entitled King of England, the book says that that drops Eleanor's role as Duchess. So, I'm confused. Why would Eleanor lose her title as Duchess if Henry became Duke, and why doesn't he assume the title of Duke? I mean, I realize that Aquitaine didn't pay homage, but it doesn't make sense that she would lose her title if he suddenly decided to become Duke.

Anyway, please email comment to me, as I probably would never get around to checking this. If you don't want to, can't, etc, if you wouldn't mind sending me an email telling me, "No," I would be very much obliged.

Email to: morvana_dumiruvor@yahoo.com

Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

Morvana

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox_prussiakstyles
Template:Infobox_prussiakstyles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Charles 06:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I felt I should post this on your page, as you created the template. It started to become misused and cluttered the page a bit. I have condensed the styles of the German Emperors it was used for into one template. Thanks for your understanding. Charles 06:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake by nominating the template for deletion. I'm really sorry. Charles 20:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Irish State funerals
Hi Jtd, can you add anyting to List of Irish state funerals? it seems like the kind of thing you might have knowledge of.--Rye1967 08:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image question
Do you know if the image you uploaded of Pius lying in state was taken at Castel Gandolfo or the Vatican. I suspect the former because the decay has not progressed very far. If the image was taken at Castel Gandolfo, I think it qualifies for {PD-Italy} because Italy only allows image copyright for 20 years, whereas I do not know what the Vatican's standards are. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Royal moves
Hi Jtdirl;

The following user's actions may be of interest to those involved in royal articles: Here and here. The user has been warned a few times by a few different people. Charles 00:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
''Please don't remove redirects on the test templates. They are there for a reason. NPA2 is there so that users can apply a level version of an attack template on pages and it redirects to an older template created before the numbering system was introduced. Redirects on that page are always kept because hundreds of users use them all the time. We cannot expect them every day to go to the TT page and check what redirects where today having been changed by someone yesterday. Leave the redirects alone. They are necessary. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 17:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)''


 * Sorry. Thakns for reverting me. It's Just that Npa2 linkded to Npa and that template Already Existed. You are right. At the time i was tinking Why give somebody a NPA and then a NPA2 if they are the same message I didn't think we wanted redundant messages. If their is no NPA2 peple would use NPA3 or NPA. I will not do that again. Thanks for Clarigyig this to me.--E-Bod 17:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

PS my reply was to the earlier but we had an edit conflict.--E-Bod 17:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my bad npa2 links to Attack while npa links to No personal attacks.

With this in mind I would not have made the edit in the first place. --E-Bod 17:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. So my opinon now is that we shold move No personal attacks and Attack and to npa and npa2. Remove the links from the test templates, but leave the redirect on No personal attacks and Attack so old messages are not destroyed.

I did not realize they linked to sepreate templates when i removed the link. I thoug it was reduntdant to Npa not attack.--E-Bod 17:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your signature
Hi there! If you're still using the Irish flag in your signature, please start using Image:Flag of Ireland.svg instead of the png version. I'm fixing the instances of the png version with my bot, so you won't have to worry about that. But the png version is facing imminent deletion, so if you haven't started already, now would be a good time to use the SVG version I mentioned. — THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 00:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I replaced the flag quite a while ago for that very reason. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 00:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, please fix the png version of the Irish flag on your user page, which is protected from editing. — THIS IS M ESSED [[Image:R with umlaut.png]] OCKER (TALK) 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Diaspora
Hi Jtdirl;

What do you think of Category:Greek Diaspora Royalty and Category:Finnish Diaspora Royalty? IMO, this is superfluous, contrived fluff that will only go as far as to clutter up the categories at the bottom of the articles. Some of the connections are so distant that a "diaspora" category could be added for any Caucasian ethnic group and be equally as valid. Diaspora is a collection or group of people outside of their homeland. I doubt many of the people in these categories consider themselves to be Finnish or Greek. The Greek one was made by a Greek, the Finnish one by a Finn. Do you think we can do a cleanup? Charles 03:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes again?
I have a suspicion that User:Northmeister, who first appeared on the Wikipedia scene on 5 February 2006, may be a reincarnation of User:Ted Wilkes who has been blocked by you on 19 March 2006 for one year. It should be remembered that around the same time, on 10 and 20 January 2006, Wilkes had created some other sockpuppets: User:Danny B. (usurped) and User:Cynthia B.. Of course, I may be wrong. However, the history of this user shows that his aggressive behavior is very similar to that of Wilkes. Like Wilkes, Northmeister is very interested in Elvis Presley and, apart from some edits he called "improvements", this user is frequently removing well-sourced paragraphs from the article which are not in line with his personal view. See, , , , , , , ,. This is also very similar to Ted Wilkes's deleting tactics. See also these discussions which prove that Northmeister constantly endeavours to denigrate my sources calling them, without evidence, "unverifiable" or "fringe views from fringe authors", etc., although I have quoted from several Elvis biographies and given the exact page numbers:,. Significantly, in the past, Northmeister has repeatedly been blocked by different administrators for WP:3RR, incivility and disruption, etc. See, for instance,, , , , , ,. See also these comments concerning Northmeister's accusation that User:Will Beback allegedly violated the three revert rule. ,. Interestingly, multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes also frequently violated the three revert rule and repeatedly accused me of "outright fabrications" or "vandalism" in the past. Is it just by chance that Northmeister has recently accused Will Beback of "outright vandalism" (see ) and of harrassing him (see )? Compare also these edits:, and. In my opinion, some administrators should keep a watchful eye on the activities of this user, whether he is identical with Ted Wilkes or not. Interestingly, another editor logging in from Canada, User:Michael Dorosh, is also singing the same tune as Northmeister. See. It should be noted that Ted Wilkes also logged in from Canada. Significantly, Michael Dorosh has removed the same paragraphs from the Elvis article as Northmeister did (see ) and repeatedly deleted comments by other users from the Talk:Elvis Presley page, as Ted Wilkes frequently did in the past. See, for instance,. 80.141.199.199 11:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman
Hi, if you have time, it'd be quite helpful if you could take a look at the dispute on this article. Like so many articles on members of the U.S. Congress, this article seems to be controlled by a tight clique of POV-pushers who know nothing about writing an encyclopedia. 172 | Talk 05:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD
Hi Jtdirl;

Would you consider visiting Articles for deletion/Scottish pedigree of Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar and contributing? Thanks. Charles 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sussexman - Your blanket ban
You were wrong to ban Sussexman (who is not Lauder-Frost - Preposterous). Sussexman has valiantly defended the vitriolic attacks made by a very small group upon someone he knew years ago, liked, and felt a great injustice was being done to. He was quite right to tell people crossing legal boundaries that they were doing this and quite right to tell people that by doing so they would soon find out the consequences. That is not a legal threat and banning everyone who points out simple facts is not the way forward for Wikipedia which should not be above the law. 81.131.37.101 07:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am unable to see that the arbitration committee or Jimbo Wales has authorised such a blanket ban and even a deletion of the User page. There is no evidence (other than theories) that there is any connexion between Sussexman and anyone anywhere getting solicitor's letters. This is monstrous. You exceed your authority, especially when I note from the Gregory lauder-Frost Talk Page that the matter is currently in the hands of your legal eagles. 81.131.65.248 19:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For your supportive message. I have deleted the second part of your email, which was in rather poor taste. Adam 09:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquette right-up
Hi Jtdirl;

Would you mind taking a look at the Wikiquette entries of the 20th and add your views (whatever they may be) on whether you agree or disagree with the alert? There is mention of a write-up that you did in it. Many thanks. Charles 18:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII FAC
I nominated Pope Pius XII to be a Featured Article. As you are one of the perennial contributors to the article and the talk page, I would appreciate your comments at the nomination page linked above, whether or not you choose to join me in supporting the article. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The big church in Longford has inscribed "Semper fidelis", to the cause of course,and cryptic.

In a spot of difficulty - serious problem
Hi FÉ, I've just realised that someone has maliciously set up a user's account using my real name and surname. I happen to have a pretty unusual name and am positive that I am the only person with this name on the planet. Up to last week, I was the only person of this name listed in Google and now this bogus user account comes up top of a google search list. Whoever created the account has included lots of userboxes which do not reflect my person in any way and represent a childish attempt to denegrate and insult me. I'm reluctant to provide a link to the page in question as this will force me to reveal my true identidy, which I don't wish to reveal so publically, as is my rights as a Wikipedia user.

I've a fair idea who is behind this. I'd really appreciate any assistance you, as an an admin, could give me in this situation. Regards, --Damac 10:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again, Did you get my email, sent two days ago?--Damac 07:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hiya, regarding the Polish issue, I was wondering if you'd been following the discussion at  Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07_Polish_Cabal_and_myself_as_its_leader. I've been thinking that the next step may be via Requests for comment/User conduct, but I've never successfully started an RfC, so I'm a bit reluctant to try. Have you been involved with them, yourself? What is your opinion on what the proper next step might be? --Elonka 23:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Accusation
I see you've accused me of being a sockpuppet at Talk:Casimir III of Poland. I'm not sure how you've arrived at this conclusion, but it's false, and I expect an apology. Appleseed (Talk) 19:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't apologize, this user is accusing others of being sockpuppets just because he is miffed that things are not going as he wanted. Charles 20:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Charles baseless accuastions just to force your own version and intimidate person that opposes your proposal? Do a checkuser request first. --Molobo 20:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What on Earth are you blabbering about? Just because the result isn't in your favour and shouldn't be, you feel you must attack Jtdirl (a fantastic Wikipedian), myself, and others? Elaborate on these intimidations and baseless accusations. I feel a good laugh will follow. Charles 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are accussing Appleseed of being a sockpuppet. Evidence ? --Molobo 20:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Where did I accuse him of being a sockpuppet? And please learn how to format your responses so that they don't needlessly carry on to other lines. Charles 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So you agree that accusation against Appleseed is baseless and was presented without evidence ? --Molobo 20:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about that, but I know of the saying "don't throw stones if you live in a glass house". Appleseed cannot rightly expect an apology for something Appleseed is too guilty of. Charles 20:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What is Appleseed guilty of ? What are you accusing him of ? --Molobo 20:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Appleseed is guilty of accusing Henq and/or myself (the latter is not clear, but the former is) of being a sockpuppet simply because Henq supports the naming conventions and indicated on Appleseed's page that Appleseed was in error. Charles 20:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a typo for which I unreservedly apologise. I made the mistake of simultaneously working on Coronation Street and working on WP and entered the wrong name. I meant and got my As mixed up. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 20:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response, and for clearing this up at Talk:Casimir III of Poland. Appleseed (Talk) 20:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re RSF
You missed the fact that User:Donnchadh's attack at Talk:Republican Sinn Féin was also posted previously at Talk:Sinn Féin; I've removed it, and am just leaving you a note lest you think he did so after he was warned. --Kwekubo 21:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Standardized look for geographical infoboxes
Hi - I created a proposed guideline for geographical infoboxes I expect you might be interested in, please see Geographical infoboxes. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Page moved by Maed
Hi Jtdirl

It seems like the recent action didn't really help. Do you have any good suggestions? Regards. Valentinian (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pro-choice: "POV language"?
Jtdirl --

What was POV about my edit to Pro-choice? If you get the chance, please respond to Alienus at Talk:Pro-choice as I believe my language was balanced, neutral and measured (as well as clearer and more accurate than the current, in reference to views about the validity of "pro-abortion") and I'd like to address whatever issues you have.

Thanks and regards --

--Rocketfairy 21:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry etc
Hi. Further to your comments, it occured to me recently that DreamGuy may actually be the re-creation of an editor permanently banned by Jimbo some time ago. The editor in question originally used a 3-letter nick. Several others seem to think this is a possibility too. Any idea how this suspicion should best be handled? --Centauri 03:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Pro-choice External Links reverts
I'd appreciate it if you read the talk page on pro-choice before reverting my changes to external links. They were decided upon by consensus, as noted in my edit notes. Thanks! --BCSWowbagger 06:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry; I thought you and FearEirran were different people. I didn't realize that you were the same user until I saw the code in your signature.  I thought you were someone swooping in and changing things without consulting anyone and brushing off the discussion.  I still believe the consensus, or at the very least a supermajority supports my view, but your editing makes a lot more sense now.  I'll see you on the talk page, I suppose. --BCSWowbagger 21:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD
Hello again! Unless you're thoroughly fed up with TfD that you no longer want to look at the page, your feedback will be helpful on this discussion. 172 | Talk

OrphanBot
I see you also hate OrphanBot (As it shows on its talk page), so you might want to look at this

Micoolio101 23:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Micoolio101


 * was submitted to deletion review, 217.251.173.136 13:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Piusxiib.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Piusxiib.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  SCH ZMO  ✍ 03:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You might want to take another look at this. Some new and devastating evidence has come to light. I went ahead and removed the image from all articles but Pope Pius XII and plan on readding the link to WP:PUI. We should work on substantiating a better fairuse claim for that article, and look into whether it falls under PD-Canada I think, if this image can be saved. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hyphens
Clearly you haven't seen these categories in use, they are applied to anyone that has identifiable ethnicity, not in the strict hyphenated definition.--Peta 03:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I had an argument with a ridiculous Canadian who insisted that a person should be described by their original ethnicity - no matter how far removed and it seems that many people seem to value categorising people according to their ancient origins (I'm not sure why). Maintaining correct use of hyphenated or non-hyphenated categories is an unpolicable feat, and for the sake of accomodating both origin and ethnicity and a consistent scheme of catagorisation I think ditching the hyphen is a good idea.--Peta 04:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then someone needs to suggest the reverse of what I have done, ie hypenating all the unhyphenated ethnicity and origin cats. Really my main interest in this was that they were eaither all hyphenated, or not.--Peta 04:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Catholic and Catholicism (and Catholic Church (disambiguation))
Hmm. That's faintly helpful; except that the current Catholic page is entirely about the different Christian uses of the word 'Catholic' - i.e. exactly what the Catholicism page is about. As I've said on Talk:Catholicism, I'm not opposed to them staying separate; I just want to know why, so they can be made to be about different things, because as far as I can tell at the moment they're about exactly the same thing. TSP 21:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested to see a version of the Catholic article which does contain content outside the scope of Catholicism; just because I can't think what there is to encyclopedically say on the subject. On a quick flick-through, though, I can't see any version in the last 500 edits that covers any ground not also covered by Catholicism.  (See also my latest comment on Talk:Catholicism.)


 * I sympathise with your not wanting to repeat discussions (having had to discuss the same thing 4 or 5 times now, for several months each time, over on Talk:Roman Catholic Church); but I really can't see where this has been discussed at any length (more than "These should be merged"; "No they shouldn't"); and the continuing separation is causing its own cleanup problems as people have different ideas of what the three pages are for (particularly Catholic Church (disambiguation)).  TSP 22:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey

 * Hi, I understand what you did and why. I think the new user  was previously editing under the IP .  Should the just over 400 deleted edits be restored  though?  A whole lot were also lost when UKPaolo also merged histories.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now apparently editing as, who I have warned for moving the page again.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Phrasing spelling differences
The prob is that it suggests that one spelling is normative. It's much more instructive to enable people to go to the spelling diff's page and draw their own conclusions. And we're trying to be instructive, yes? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-04 16:05 (UTC)

Moreover, it's not an American spelling, the spelling is also used in Canada. Please stop edit-warring over this. Respond to at least one of my three arguments (without, in the case of one of my arguments, the one about its being a standard, merely claiming that something else is the standard; provide proof), or leave it as I've changed it. Thank you in advance for your civility. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-05 07:05 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for evidence that what you claim is the agreed to format actually is the agreed to format. Could you please provide some? Thanks in advance for your cooperation and reduced combativeness. :) --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-05 12:28 (UTC)

British Isles article
I am quite stunned by your edit to British Isles. Not only do you use unverified material that occurs in the article regarding Mikhail Gorbachev and Nancy Reagan to try to support your edit, but you also use a source from the Irish Examiner that also does not support your edit. It is far and away the poorest piece of verifiability and the most blatant point of view posturing I have ever encountered on wikipedia. I am trying hard to form a consensus in this article whereby we can maintain that the term British Isles is offensive to most citizens of the Republic of Ireland, while also trying to keep politics out of the article as much as possible. You are not helping. Alun 16:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding the relevant citations for the article. I am happy that mention is made of the contentiousness of the term, but I am most pleased that these have been verified, it was all I wanted. I am not the POV pusher you took me for. Again thanks. Alun 17:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday, when you posted the note on my talk page asking for help dealing with the user "intent on POV-pushing" on British Isles, I didn't expected them to be so unreasonable. I assumed a dispute on a geography page would be a cakewalk compared to the disputes with the partisans I was encountering on socialism, state, and capitalism-- the pages I'd rewritten in recent weeks. I see now they're much worse! I've just restored your last version of the article. I bet my edit will be reverted within minutes. Sigh... 172 | Talk 21:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just got your message, I will try to keep a eye on that article, I'am having a similar probem on the Republican Sinn Fein article, with a user posting false information, and providing a reference to Ed Moloneys Book, the thing is the reference he gives supports my edit and not the info he is trying to insert.--padraig3uk 22:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and reported Feline1's 3RR violation. Please go ahead and add your comments here. 172 | Talk 22:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to invite other editors to take a look at the page? G-Man, John Kenney, Mackensen, and George come to mind as skilled editor who may be interested in the subject. 172 | Talk 23:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. I've just reverted the vandalism by David Souza. 172 | Talk 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello - thanks for the further explanations on my talk page. I'm going to stick with what I think was my basic point on the article talk page, that I think you are conflating the fact that Irish people (to a fair/great extent) don't like using the term "British Isles" with the idea that there is a meaning of the term "British Isles" which excludes Ireland. I don't think the latter is true (and your further explanation of the Haughey/Gorbachev incident, I think, brings this out, as well). There is no coherent usage of "British Isles" to mean "the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man" (or "Great Britain and the isle of Man" or "Great Britain and outlying islands, excluding Ireland and the Isle of Man and their outlying islands"). The only coherent usage of "British Isles" is "Great Britain, Ireland, and nearby islands." That a lot of Irish people don't like this name and don't use it is true, and should be discussed (to some extent) in the article. But we should be careful that we are positing that the term itself is controversial not that Ireland's position within the term is. Some Irish people object to the idea of Ireland being in an archipelago/island group called "British." But I don't think it's yet been demonstrated that much of anybody uses the term in a way which excludes Ireland (or excludes just the Republic, or what have you). john k 01:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, i've requested the article be unprotected.EricR 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit of July 8th
I was just wondering about the logic of your edit of July 8th? I must admit that I had hoped the version that was there seemed to be lasting.

In paticular, the sentence 'The claim that the Republic of Ireland is covered by the term is widely disputed in Ireland and elsewhere' troubles me. You havn't really responded to the arguments against that sort of point raised by John K above. I'd probably be happier with the sentence if it dropped 'widely', as we have no evidence to suggest whether it is widely disputed, or whether it is just done so by a few.

Also, it seems to take the opporunity to mention the dispute of the term at every single moment, which, in my mind, is a fairly unencyclopedic way to deal with the issue.

That said, I do like what it's doing, and I'm glad you appear to have accepted the format of the article, if not its wording. What I'd like to do is edit your current version to deal with some of the concerns raised above, and then hopefully we might be near a solution to the problem.

Anyway, if you have any issues with my changes, please bring them to me... I'd like to think that the current article is pretty much how the page will end out, with a few minor adjustments. --Robdurbar 18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying. I came here rather than the British Isles talk page because the latter is getting horribly messy. What do you think of this version, by the way:(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Isles&oldid=62774465)? You clearly object, as you reverted it, but I'm intrigued as to what excalty the problem is with that. I'm asking because you seem to be fairly well informed on the view from an Irish perspective. I had hoped that this is fairly close to how the article ought to be. It raises the issue of the term being disputed in the very first line of the second paragraph; and note phrases such as 'the british isels is A term' rahter than 'THE term' etc.


 * As for some of your claims; I wonder how many of those see British Isles as an outmoded term, rahter than one that is used but should explicitly exclude the RoI. By that I mean - when someone hears 'British Isles' and objects, do they really mean that this term should be/is being used to mean just those islands that are part of 'Britain' or do they simply mean that they would prefer a different term to 'British Isles' for the archipaledo.


 * And as for 'increasingly in academia'... I certainly know that the literature on glaciology still refers to the 'British Isles Ice Sheet'. But then maybe we geographers/geologists are just behind the times ... ;) --Robdurbar 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, none of those problems at the mo here. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if, when you get a chance, you could throw a fully critical eye over the version noted above; I'd just like some sort of idea how close you feel that is to neutral. --Robdurbar 23:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate a lot of your points, though I must admit I occaisionally got lost in your rather enyclopedic (how appropriate!) knowledge of Irish-British relations post 1922!


 * However, I also want to us to avoid meantioning the dispute at every sentence, as we could risk; I think it looks sloppy and incoherent.


 * Bearing your concerns, and other recent edits, in mind, I've made a new intro. I hope its not a bore for me to ask the same question again? --Robdurbar 17:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocking
The British Isles article is clearly something you are passionate about and you wish to make it as brilliant and balanced and fair as possible. However I do feel that in the heat of the debate you over stepped the mark in your blocking. You are a little too close to the matter to be doing the blocking yourself - and from Feline1's last edit to your block is something like 18 minutes. That's way too fast. You made comments on the admin board, but acted before waiting for a response. Take a look at the response times for the other 3R cases. Nobody gets an instant response - the situation is not that serious. In your case it is a disagreement about the precise tone of the article. OK. In the heat of the moment you made a mistake. But don't compound that human error by attempting to justify your actions, that is just making you look bad, and I don't think you are a bad person. You will not solve this dispute by annoying and frustrating Feline1. I suggest you make an extra effort to sympathise with his point of view and work together toward making The British Isles a brilliant article. Stay cool, and take some deep breaths. On the whole you're doing a great job. SilkTork 00:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretender
Hi Jtdirl;

I am concerned with the activity of Manuel de Sousa and of the varying anonymous editors at this page. Is there anything further that can be done? Can Manuel de Sousa be banned indefinitely for his actions? Charles 16:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Jtdirl! I'll keep my eye open and notify you if anymore funny business occurs. Charles 01:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, a quick question: Do you know where I should go with suggestions for the site? I would love it if the Special:Watchlist/edit page made note of pages that are redirects. Charles 02:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Finnish Royalty
I am having a problem dealing with edits made by Finlandais. The user is adament about including categories for Finnish royals in articles about Russian royals, even going as far as to write Nicholas II as Grand Duke Nicholas II of Finland! Even though these categories are accurate in *that* sense, it makes about as much sense as adding all of the Russian royals to categories for German nobles, Norwegian heirs, princes of the Holy Roman Empire, etc. Charles 20:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect
You are certainly incorrect. It is unthinkable that, for example, George I of Greece would not have a category linkin him to Danish royalty, amd another to link him to Greek royalty. Please think first before alleging something that is manifestly incorrect. Finlandais 21:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Greece and Denmark were two different royal families. Of Finland there was only a Grand Duke (no princes or princesses) and he was concurrently the Head of the Imperial House of Russia. There was no House of Finland. George I of Greece was a member of two houses that existed independently of one another. Charles 21:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops re Ted Wilkes
Hello,

You are right, I wasn't aware Ted Wilkes had been banned from editing. I was doing some work on the Diana Barrymore Article and had a question for him. Sorry about that.

Be healthy,


 * Michael David 00:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:BHussar.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BHussar.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 file 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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.

Also, please note that the fair use tag, Politicalposter, is patently incorrect. BigDT 04:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Queen6.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Queen6.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 04:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Prochoiceirl.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Prochoiceirl.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 04:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible Sock
If you go to TharkunColl user page, it then redirects to TharkunColl talk page. Then use the go back link and check the edit on the user page. You will notice that there is only one edit and that edit is made by john k, looks like a sockpuppet to me. MelForbes 23:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There may be a plausable explanation for it. Someone left a message on my talk page. MelForbes 23:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese pretender
Hi, I don't understand why you continue to insert the name of Maria Pia of Braganza and Rosario Poidimani as false pretender to Portuguese Crown in wikipedia page as the voice "pretender" and "Hilda Toledano". The pretension of these pretenders has value for many portuguese monarchists, historians, Tribunals so if you define these pretenders as false or impostor this is a defamation, so please have the courage of your words and indicate me your real name and address so I am sure dom Rosario Poidimani will bring an legal action against you and you will be able to explain your convictions and diffamations in a Tribunal. Many monarchic associationes consider Rosario Poidimani a pretender ,,; many famous hystorians ; the most historian portuguese encyclopedia consider Maria Pia as pretender, and in many sentences of international Tribunals ,. So please stop with this partial consideration about false o impostor pretender. Your considerations, also if you are an administrator here, have no objective value and so please reinsert Rosario Poidimani as true pretender in pretender page and delete impostor pretender in Maria Pia page. Thanks. Manuel de S. ,12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The anon user I mention in the below topic is the same person who posted the above one, apparently Manuel de Sousa. Charles 17:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl I wrote only objective and documented facts. If you write "impostor pretender" in Maria Pia page or fake pretender in "pretender" page this is NPOV affirmations. You can't write this. Infact I don't understand why you continue to insert the name of Maria Pia of Braganza and Rosario Poidimani as false pretender to Portuguese Crown in wikipedia page as the voice "pretender" and "Hilda Toledano". The pretension of these pretenders has value for many portuguese monarchists, historians, Tribunals so if you define these pretenders as false or impostor this is a defamation, so please have the courage of your words and indicate me your real name and address so I am sure dom Rosario Poidimani will bring an legal action against you and you will be able to explain your convictions and diffamations in a Tribunal. Many monarchic associationes consider Rosario Poidimani a pretender ,,; many famous hystorians ; the most historian portuguese encyclopedia consider Maria Pia as pretender, and in many sentences of international Tribunals ,. So please stop with this partial consideration about false o impostor pretender. Your considerations, also if you are an administrator here, have no objective value and so please reinsert Rosario Poidimani as true pretender in pretender page and delete impostor pretender in Maria Pia page. So please explain me where I can see that these pretender are fake. What are sentences of Tribunal that states this? For many monarchist this pretender is the lawful pretender so please reinsert this pretender as true pretender. At the contrary I must advise all the other admistrator about this abuse of power. Can explain me why you don't insert in Duarte page his opposition about his claims? Is not convenient for the objective truth?

Please reply. Manuel de Sousa, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza
An anonymous editor is inserting the false pretenders again. Can you lock the page from edits by anonymous editors? Charles 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:LDSInfobox
Hey - I derived this infobox off Infobox pope and a new user is trying to force the infobox class on it - could use your help. -- Trödel 03:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hillery big.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Hillery big.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Angr 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Stormont house > Dundonald house
I noticed you moved Dundonald House back to Stormont House. As you may think this is correct, it is not. Stormont house is the name for the Castle itself (Stormont Castle). Dundonald House is the Northern Ireland Civil Service building. Whether it is colloquially known as Stormont House is one thing, but Northern Ireland is colloquially known as Ireland. See what I mean? You have made a huge mistake my friend, and if I must I can take photos to prove this. Not only do I know this, but I spent several hours around the NICS building today, Image:StormontHouse.JPG, and took more photos of it for wikipedia, only to find that its article has been seemingly completly removed. I would like for you to undo your changes. --Dom0803 17:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Desperately seeking a sensible admin!
Naturally I came to you first! I'm having trouble with this. The category, "Welsh-speaking people" was added to this debate after many votes had been cast, and has now been deleted by a bot. User:Cyde warns me that it will happen again if it remains on this page. I am getting much too involved in this, since I created the category. Would you be prepared to amend the discussion page pending resolution of the matter? Deb 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, did you see my note? Deb 08:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I knew you'd get there eventually. Deb 17:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oof, have a look what young William's idea of "relisting" is! I may as well chuck the towel in right away. Deb 21:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:OKellyinaug.jpg
Great to see the photo. Well done! ant_ie 22:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

See also portuguese newspaper about their pretender
Hi, also one of the most famous newspaper in Portugal "Destak" of today 14 July 2006, in the page 5, tells about the portuguese succesion and mentioned dom Rosario Poidimani as pretender and Dom Duarte Pio as an illegitimate pretender for his exclusion from the last monarchic Constitution. This affirmation was an affirmation of the president of the P.P.M. The only Moanrchic Party in Portugal. So please again reinsert Rosario Poidimani as a true pretender,Maria Pia as true pretender and Duarte Pio opposition in his page. Please reply Manuel de Sousa, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are blocked from editing this site. Any abuse of this site for promotional claims and links leads to blocks. The issue is closed. Find a POV site that will take POV-pushing. This one doesn't. Go away. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 22:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Licensing on some of your images
Your comments on WP:IFD are somewhat disturbing for several reasons. I did not realize, until just now, that you are an administrator. As such, being familiar with WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:FAIR may be helpful.

At any rate, while looking at an unrelated issue, I noticed this image that you had uploaded ... Image:Eamon de Valera (portrait).jpg. This image may be a copyright violation, or, at least, there is insufficient information given to determine that it is not a copyright violation. In deference to your position, I felt it would be better to address the issue here rather than. When you crop a photo, you are making a "derivative work" of that prior photo. In order for you to have the rights to the derivative work, you must also have rights to the original photo, or, it must be in the public domain. Can you provide source information for the original photo in order to demonstrate that it is public domain?

I also looked back at some of your other recent image contributions. I offer these suggestions as friendly advice:


 * Image:OKellyinaug.jpg - please consider removing the Politicalposter tag. This image is obviously not a political poster and you have correctly tagged it with Non-free fair use in and provided a fair use rationale ... that is sufficient - you don't need another tag.


 * Image:Cardconnell.jpg, Image:Daly, Cahal Brandan Cardinal.jpg, and Image:CardD'Alton.jpg - please consider removing the Eventposter tag. These images are obviously not event posters.  You have correctly tagged them as Non-free fair use in, although it may be helpful to provide a longer fair use rationale.


 * Image:Irishpres.jpg - this image is obviously not an event poster and could be speedy deleted as I7. The tag should probably be changed to Non-free fair use in as it probably does qualify for fair use ... it just is not an event poster.


 * Image:Queenpope.jpg - violates WP:FAIR #5 as it is a media photo. Additionally, as it is only illustrating a kind of headwear, a free example somewhere could almost certainly be found.  (As such, I am going to nominate it for deletion.)

I hope these suggestions are helpful. BigDT 15:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

British Isles
I appreciate that you've found recent developments on British Isles a bit upsetting, but hope that you'd understand that the turmoil of the last few weeks has been equally upsetting for others. In my opinion taking more care at this stage over policy will allow a properly sourced and balanced article to give full and fair representation to both viewpoints. It's appreciated that you have now given sources to substantiate the claims of controversy: unfortunately some of your earlier sources and their interpretation appear to have been subject to wishful thinking and careful checking of these points will be necessary. The recent post you left on the talk page seemed rather discourteous: it would be welcome if you could assume good faith from other contributors. I hope all will be able to work together in a friendly way to make the article better. ...dave souza, talk 22:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick and helpful response. I've left a first response on my talk page to keep the main discussion together, and sorry to hear about the sciatica, it sounds really awful. Best wishes for an improvement in that. ..dave souza, talk 05:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair dues Jtdril on the way you handled the British Isles article. Being born in Scotland myself and having left it for close on 20 years, I have seen a bit of the world, but I cannot for the life in me understand a Scottish editor pushing the whole "empire" concept. Did notice Irish editors don't group just a little bit more. It seems a bit more important in these sort of cases, but you did the job for them. Liked Robdurbar too, seemed one of the more sincere editors, oh, and the Welsh guy Alun MelForbes 01:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC) A nascent page, British and Irish Isles. Very often hear the term used, couldn't believe it wasn't on Wiki! MelForbes 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Template unreferenced
Hi, just in case you don't look there often, could you look at the comments at Template talk:Unreferenced about the changes you made on that template, thanks. Garion96 (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Anson Chan
Thanks, Jtdirl, for your support on enforcing the NPOV rules on Wikipedia by warning WangFeiHung. He is attempting to turn the Anson Chan article into a Maoist criticism paper against "foreign forces". WFH has also created a sockpuppet to support his "cause" (the suckpuppet has since been banned by admins after I alerted them). Wikipedia is not Maoistpedia, so we should never, ever support such extreme comments that no respectable mainstream press would dare to touch.

It is very likely that WFH will attack the page again and insert his opinions into it once more. I have vowed to revert all edits made by him on the page- regardless of the veracity of the contents or its NPOVness- on sight. I have also vowed to "go it alone" if no one will support me on this endeavour.

I know you cannot be there all the time to help with defending Wikipedia's reputation, but can you help me on this endeavour? Any reply is much appreciated. --Arbiteroftruth 00:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Sorrow5crop.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sorrow5crop.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 file 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. User:Angr 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:GurchBot
Regarding this, yes, my edit was wrong. Sorry, how that made it onto my correction list in the first place I don't know. I have of course removed it. Again, my apologies – Gurch 22:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, after a few moments' investigation I have found the source of the problem. I based my correction list on a number of lists already in existence around the wiki, one of which can be found here. I made the mistake, however, of assuming that everything on these lists was in fact a genuine spelling error. It is of course painfully obvious to me now that this is not the case. I shall be more careful in the future. I have left a message for Draicone, the list's maintainer. You may or may not wish to comment further. Again, sorry and thanks for the fast revert – Gurch 22:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can understand your concern if you thought the bot was an automated one. You'll be reassured to know that automated spellchecking bots are actually prohibited under official policy ("There should be no bots that attempt to fix spelling mistakes in an unattended fashion." at Bots), becuase there are always exceptions ("sic", names of people/things and so on) which no bot would be able to detect perfectly. I have actually been doing this spellchecking since February, but using my account rather than a separate bot account, and have corrected around 10,000 pages so far. However, a couple of users recommended I get a bot account because of the speed at which I was editing. Currently the bot is in a "trial period" pending final approval by this lot.


 * I have also found the ultimate source of the incorrect "licenced -> licensed" correction in my list. I copied it from User:Draicone, assuming it was OK, but it turns out that he copied it from Lists of common misspellings/For machines, assuming that was OK. The error has been on there since it was created in April 2005 (shows how often it's actually used) by User:R3m0t, who was simply changing Lists of common misspellings (since split into subpages) into a machine-readable format. It has been on that list since... wait for it... November 4th 2002, when it was added by User:Derek Ross, who, amazingly, is still an active contributor. I'm just the first person sufficiently gullible to actually try correcting it in four years! Anyway, I have removed it from there as well, and hopefully it shall not trouble us again – Gurch 11:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so rude and insulting?
I had to sign in to create a category. As admins behave like you I will never sign in again. Camestone 01:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 9
"Whoever thought up the proposed new name obviously doesn't know what they are doing". Please be more civil. Tim! 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bono move
Thanks for your support. It was quite a poorly thought-out move--not only did it not follow common sense, but also it duplicated the disambig page and forked it's history, and unfortunately several pages have now had links to Bono "automatically disambiguated" to Bono (U2) (See Bill Gates, which I was watching). Hundreds of pages link to Bono and my guess is all of them refer to Bono... I don't see why they wouldn't. Anyway, I don't know if it's important or not but someone should probably delete Bono, move Bono (U2) back in its place, and leave it as a redirect so that the move can't be performed again without consensus and an admin's help. I am not an admin so I can't fix this. Do you think I should list it at Requested moves? -- Renesis13 04:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Advice
I hope you don't mind if I ask your advice as an admin? I am having some problems at Rosalind Franklin, I have spent a lot of time on this article and yesterday I noticed that someone had deleted a great swathe of the article. I reverted it and asked for an explanation on the talk page. It seems that someone is trying to create a different article concerning the DNA controversy and is removing all references to this from Franklin's article (but this is the reason Franklin is famous). I have requested that they wait untill the subject has been properly discussed on the talk page, but though they are contributing to the talk page, they continue to remove all of the relevant material. I don't know what the proper procedure is, but this user doesn't even have an account (I have suggested they get one), would it be possible to disable editing by unregistered users? I'd appreciate your advice very much. Hope I'm not bothering you too much. Alun 06:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So another admin has speedy deleted the new article, apparently it was created by a banned user. Thanks for the help. Alun 17:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"The problem is not whether machines think, but whether men do"
Actually, it's my mistake, I'd given wrong instructions to bot at WP:CFD/W. Now I've placed another request for a move, so hopefully it'll be corrected. Thank you for pointing this out. Conscious 18:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Athletics
I don't expect you to get involved, but I was looking at the Football (soccer) talk archives, and I thought you might be amused by this... Talk:Athletics. --Usgnus 22:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

British Isles
Hi, bit disturbed about your recent edit, not the first para, but the wholesale reverts that you didn't talk about. Not particularly bothered about stylistic changes or changes to language, but I am bothered about: all with no explanation. There are a lot of bad faith things going on the British Isles page, but not from me, and I think that is even more reason to stick to WP:V and provide clear explanations of what we are trying to achieve when we edit the page. What I want to see is the inclusion (not deletion) of material, but the atmosphere on the page is so febrile, that I think it is essential that everything is referenced properly. On the whole, I am a believer that wholesale reverts should only take place for palpable nonsense or breaches of Wiki policy, trying to use new edits to improve an article iis far more interesting. Wholly agee with your recent comment about the positive aspect of the page, by the way. MAG1 11:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * removal of verified facts (the Heylin stuff), particularly without explanation;
 * the inclusion of an incorrect reference (the Anglo-Celtic website- there is an explanation on the talk page);
 * the inclusion of an incomplete reference (the legal one),

Compare your version of 11.13 (BST, I am afraid) with mine of 23.54 last night - did you use an old version of the text? MAG1 11:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi,thanks for the message, and glad to hear that it is all a glitch. Would you mind merging the changes you intended to make this morning with the final version from last night? (I only did a partial revert this morning as I assumed you did not like the edits.) Thanks MAG1 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, no problem, had a go myself. Hopefully the page is now how everyone wanted it left. The problematical reference was not the North book (which was fine), but the following one which just indicated an issue of the Law Society Gazette and no further details. MAG1 17:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)