User talk:Renamed user 1000000008/Archives2012/November

Essex discussion at WikiProject Council/Proposals

 * Description : A project for the county of Essex, England


 * Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
 * 1) Chris 05:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could try Category:Wikipedians from Essex and also place notices e.g. at WikiProject England. Simply south (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments

Ganga commonname
Please study the reason behind wp:Commonname, Ganga is an exception to the rule, and this exception is not based on facts. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Brawn GP
Sorry but I'm fed up with drive by editors making unexplained changes. With no edit summary I can't find the consensus, can I?

f1 teams names
I'm happy to defend and discuss my recent changes to Renault F1. talk over here? Tubefurnace (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Jacques Villeneuve
Yeah, you're probably right. I don't particularly agree with the logic that because we don't refer to Anglo-Canadians (Britanno-Canadians?) we don't refer to French-Canadians. (Google kind of backs me up on this).

However, I do agree that it's nationality (not ethnicity) that's the most relevant thing right up front in the lead. As you can see, I had doubts as soon as I made the edit. Thanks for the note. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Irish nationalist editing
Clearly attempts to resolve the problem through discussion with the user have failed, and at least three separate users have reverted his changes. Is it time for ANI, do you think, or is there an intermediate venue? (I mean, RfC or EA/R, in theory, but this is taking place across a number of articles.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, your compromise on Shackleton and his 'nationality' makes sense. Hope that's an end of it and no-one feels a need to invent any more new nationalities. --Flexdream (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Medieval english army
because it does not create an article named, medieval warfare does not explain much, this article discusses a generalized, but not a lot of English. Greetings--190.234.209.127 (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Withdrawn – uw-npov2
 * Based on the discussion on my talk page, it is apparent that this user was inadvertently restoring vandalism while trying to make a constructive edit, which was my reason for reverting and warning. As it is now clear it was a good faith edit, I am removing the warning. Monty  845  19:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Red Bull constructor names
Hi Jon. My understanding is that the constructor name displayed above the infobox should match the way it's written throughout the rest of the encyclopedia (e.g. in the "Constructor" column of race results tables), which is not necessarily the same as how it appears on the official FIA entry list. But I must confess I couldn't find that written down anywhere. So feel free to start a discussion at WT:F1 if you like. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Renault and Lotus
Lotus Renault, the former Renault works team, is usually called Renault and the page about it here is named accordingly. Team Lotus, which was Lotus Racing last year, is usually called Lotus. Lotus Renault can refer to both teams. If you want to redirect that one again, please discuss it first. Google shouldn't count above Wikipedia consensus, should it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.46.170 (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia consensus? Read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and honestly tell me you think a significant number of people wanting Tony Fernandes's team are going to be searching for "Lotus Renault". No one calls the new Team Lotus Lotus Renault. And even if a few stragglers did, there's still a hatnote at the Lotus Renault GP page, so everyone's a winner. JonChapple Talk 22:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at Talk:Lotus Renault so we can establish a consensus. I invite to you to express your views there. DH85868993 (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: McLaren
Hi Jon. Yes, the convention is to link to the article as a whole, rather than a subsection. This is consistent with the convention for other companies which have been both constructors and engine suppliers (Renault, Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, etc). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Cher Lloyd
Your opinion on the redirect would be appreciated at Talk:Cher Lloyd. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ulster place names
I don't understand why you've added Scots place names with a cite that is an Ulster Scots document without translation. I notice you also have placed it ahead of the Irish name even where that name clearly predates the English one. --Chuunen Baka (talk  • contribs) 11:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Ulster Scots names fit into the UK template since it links Scots Language and the names you cite are not Scots. Maybe the template needs updating but that's beyond my wiki skills. The cite doesn't really work because all it does is use the Ulster Scots name – you have to compare two documents to deduce anything. I'm not saying that the USc names are invalid but given the neologistic nature of some of the spellings, a better source would be nice. --Chuunen Baka (talk  • contribs) 11:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Irish people
The hatnote at this article clearly states This article is about the Irish as an ethnic group and nation. Seems pretty unambiguous. RashersTierney (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Mairead Maguire
Hi, can you find a source where Mairead Maguire self identifies as Northern Irish ? If not I think it is better to just say where she is from. It's easy to find sources that describe her as Irish (e.g. BBC, Haaretz etc etc). Anyone can replace your source with those using the same argument as you, "it's a reliable source". Living people get to define their own identity so it would be better if we had an interview or something like that where she describes herself as Northern Irish, Irish, British or whatever.  Sean.hoyland  – talk 16:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

flag for Northern Ireland
It does make sense to provide a flag for Northern Ireland, and as it has no specific "de facto" flag (purely depends on point of view whether the UB is or not) for itself anymore unlike England, Scotland, and Wales, then the "de jure" flag makes sense, i.e. the Union Flag. We could always just lump in the flag of the NI assembly in lol. However MOS:IE makes it clear no flag unless one is used for that situation. Mabuska (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Unfortunately until NI has a new flag of its own (or the Ulster Banner is re-instated, which is trés unlikely), the Union Flag is the best bet. It's currently the only flag of the country/province/"North of Ireland". JonChapple Talk 15:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Out of curiousity what happened the comments above mine? Makes it look like i just started this as a whole new discussion when it was a continuation of one.


 * It's all too easy to use the excuse that because the NI Government no longer exists then the flag no longer has any officialiaty, however when did the Scottish, Welsh, and English flags have any officiality in law? And if we go by common use, i'd say the Ulster Banner is used more often than not to represent Northern Ireland regardless of opinions – especially as nationalists use the tricolour to represent all-Ireland rather than NI specifically. Mabuska (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What, the ones about de Valera and the UDA? I was just a bit sick of looking at Domer48 telling me off for "edit-warring".
 * As for the flag, I completely agree. The Ulster Banner is undoubtedly the de facto flag of NI, hence UEFA, the Commonwealth Games, the PGA Tour, etc., all using it. But this is Wikipedia, so, of course, it's not that simple. We can't even call people "Northern Irish" (i.e. from Northern Ireland), for heaven's sake, for fear of "labelling them". JonChapple Talk 11:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the POV propaganda warfare part of Wikipedia lol Mabuska (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha. You're telling me. What do you think to what's going on at Corporals killings? JonChapple Talk 11:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no reason as to why the two press sources can't be expliclty stated, and a they are wikilinked too, the reader is all too able to find out what The Independant is. Its a very poor arguement against it. Be careful though, you can be accussed of canvassing. Mabuska (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about that particular guideline, thanks for the heads up. As much as I'd like to assume good faith, the sentence is clearly being presented in a way that makes it look like the news sources are partisan and that the men weren't tortured, owing to the fact that they're British sources. JonChapple Talk 16:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I confused you into replying to the discussion on the talk page, by the way! JonChapple Talk 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah i got confused into the wrong debate lol. Your comment is what i was going to try to say in my last comment, but couldn't figure out why it seemed wrong for me to word it. I think your assumption is correct. There is no policy against stating the two sources the way you did. Mabuska (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. Oh well, maybe you'll spark the other one back to life! It hasn't been reverted again yet, so it might stick (until tomorrow at least) :) JonChapple Talk 21:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Flag of Northern Ireland, the so-called 'Ulster Banner', is not a terribly suitable flag for Northern Ireland. After all, it was the flag of the (for the Nationalist community) oppressive and sectarian Government of Northern Ireland, an administration that seemed to serve the Ulster Unionist people only. The flag itself was only actually in official use for a very short time, I believe, from around 1953 up until 1973. The old Arms of Northern Ireland, on which the 'Ulster Banner' was based, was somewhat older, having been designed in the very early 1920s by the former Office of Arms in Dublin Castle and adopted in 1924. Both of these emblems, along with the British Union Jack, are offensive to the Nationalist community in the North. I would, however, have no problem with a new, inclusive official flag being designed for the North, a flag that would 'celebrate' (if that is the correct term) the region being part of both Ulster and Ireland as well as 'celebrating' the region's links to Britain. Such a flag could be jointly designed by both the College of Arms in London and the Genealogical Office in Dublin, taking advice from a committee appointed by the Northern Ireland Assembly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.64.66 (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, IP, whilst I do applaud your recognising that Northern Ireland needs a national flag of its own, if elements of the nationalist/republican community do find the Union Flag (of the United Kingdom, not Great Britain, as you incorrectly stated) offensive, they are more than welcome to emigrate. Similarly, why on Earth would the Genealogical Office in Dublin, the capital city of a foreign state, be asked to co-design the new flag? I'm all for that, as long as, at the same time, we ask the South to redesign their rebel flag with British input. Sound fair? JonC Talk 11:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you should visit Ireland (North and South) sometime. By your rather 'unhinged' rant above, I doubt that you have ever visited my home country of Ireland or my home province, the nine-county province of Ulster! In particular, I think that you should spend some time amongst my community, the Irish Catholic community, over here. You just don't seem to understand (or want to understand) the views and aspirations of the Irish Catholic community in Ireland, North and South, a community that makes up the vast majority of the population over here. That is certainly the impression I get from your quite right-wing, and very 'Ukip-esque', rant above. And, by the by, we Irish Catholics in the Six Counties do not see the Republic of Ireland as a 'foreign state'. We can't help it, mate! We just don't. You probably don't understand that either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.25.144 (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think the above is an unhinged rant, you're welcome to stop posting on my talk page, mystery IP man. I understand fully your views and aspirations; but it doesn't mean I have to agree with them. What of the views and aspirations of the other community that inhabit your fair isle? (Which I have visited, by the way – both South and North.) Are the unionists not Irishmen too? Why is their desire to remain part of the United Kingdom any less valid than your desire not to? Whether you like it or not, Irish Catholics/nats/republicans aren't the only Irishmen, and cannot profess to speak for the whole island nor shape its destiny single-handedly. Ireland was partitioned so the unionists could continue to live in the UK and the nationalists in an independent state of their own. The alternative is undemocratic dominance by one group over the other.
 * Unionists don't move to the South then complain about the fact they're living in an independent Irish state; why would nationalists expect non-British governance if they're living in a part of the UK (the North)? — JonC ॐ 23:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I most certainly see Ulster Protestants, whether they are Loyalist or mainstream Unionist, as being Irish. However, I don't see why all official symbolism within Northern Ireland should be Unionist or British. Official symbolism within the North should be inclusive and non-offensive to the two main communities living over here. Most mainstream, educated Unionists would agree with me on that one. Indeed, while I am an Irish nationalist, I have many Ulster Protestant friends who are supporters of either the U.U.P. or the D.U.P.. This talk of the Irish Catholic community either 'putting up' with the so-called 'Britishness' of the North or else getting out of the region, preferably by going to the Republic of Ireland, is rather silly! My community, the Catholic community within the North, is largely (but by no means exclusively) descended from the ancient Gaelic people of Ulster. My people have been living in this part of Ireland for millenia. So, Ulster - and, within that, Northern Ireland - belongs as much to us Catholics as it does to the Protestant community. I don't see why we Catholics should have to move, anymore than our Protestant neighbours should have to move.


 * I certainly respect the right of Protestants to remain within the United Kingdom, while they are still in a majority here, just as I expect Protestants to respect the Catholics aspiration for the North to join the Republic of Ireland, when our community is in a voting majority here. It is this fundamental 'difference of opinion' between the two main communities here that led to the craziness of The Troubles. Very few of us, whether Catholic or Protestant, want to go back to those dark days. Thus, all official symbolism here - or as much of it as possible - should be neutral and inclusive, no matter what the future holds for the constitutional status of the Six Counties.


 * As for the Irish tricolour, the official flag of the Republic of Ireland, I think it is quite an inclusive flag, as national flags go. As I'm sure you already know, its colours stand for peace between Irish Catholics ('the Green') and Irish Protestants ('the Orange'). Quite a nice, civilised aspiration, I would have thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.25.144 (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we mostly agree. I'm not asking anyone to move, and of course you're right in saying that very few wish to go back to the dark days of The Troubles. However, this discussion started by your assertion that Irish nationalists are offended by the Union Flag and the suggestion that a new flag be designed with help from Dublin, and I stand by my point that if one is offended by the flag of the United Kingdom, perhaps there are better places to live – when in Rome, and all that. And, whether you like it or not, Dublin is the capital of a foreign country, and that you are unable to accept partition isn't my problem! Ulster is British and has been for hundreds of years. I have some Norman ancestry – if I didn't consider France a foreign country, would I be within my rights to want the government of Normandy having some say in the day-to-day running of the UK?
 * As for the Tricolour, the intention behind the flag might be a good one, but it's just as abhorrent to unionists – if not more so – than the Banner/Union Flag is to nationalists. To unionists and loyalists, it's a flag used by terrorists (both the leaders of the Rising and the IRA's "volunteers" since) and a symbol of the desire to force them to join a state of which they want no part. — JonC ॐ 09:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I think that there's a 'wee' bit of a difference between the current situation of the descendants (mostly Irish Catholic) of the old, 'original' Gaelic population in nine-county Ulster compared with the descendants of the Normans in Great Britain!! And you are, once again, not comparing 'like with like' when you talk about whether the authorities in modern-day Normandy, or the current French Republic, should have a say in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom just simply because several million people, in Great Britain at least, can claim or do claim 'Norman' ancestry. As you well know, the vast, vast, vast majority of people within Great Britain (as opposed to the United Kingdom) accept the legitimacy of H.M. Government and the British state, with pretty much all of these people seeing themselves or recognising that they are British people. Even supporters of the S.N.P. would accept that, until such time as the Scottish people decide otherwise in a democratic vote or referendum. The same is not true within Northern Ireland, where (according to the last census) almost 45% of the entire population is Irish Catholic. The vast majority of this community does not see itself as being British. So, in the Six Counties, you have a situation where almost half, almost 50%, of the population reject, or at least are 'very uncomfortable', with the authority of the British Crown and the British state within and over their particular region. When such a vast percentage of the population of any territory or political entity feels this way, then (as the British Government found out during The Troubles) a government or a Sovereign state has a problem. Such a 'problem' cannot be answered by being a 'Colonel Blimp' about the whole thing, and simply 'order' almost half the population of the entity (in this case Northern Ireland) to 'put up, or shut up', or indeed move somewhere else. Thank God, most of us here in the North of Ireland have moved beyond that retrograde way of thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.240.15 (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I just don't accept your way of thinking. It would be a different story if a significant minority of the population of Northern Ireland wished out of the UK but had nowhere else to go, but – as I keep re-iterating – there is an independent Irish republic a short drive away. Why would you stay somewhere you don't recognise the legitimacy of or recognise yourself as belonging to when there's a state that you do just over the border? It defies common sense. Ulster has a Sudeten problem, and the unionists and Protestants are not the Germans. I think we're done here. — JonC ॐ 15:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

1990s
I'm curious. I have a feeling that some, if not most all, of the Scots names have been made-up by the authors of the sources cited. This current Ulstèr-Scotch malarkey seems to have started in the 1990s. If references for those names can be found before the 1990s it would indicate that Scots-speakers might have actually used them, either in speech or writing. My friend Google can't find any references other than those provided in the articles. 92.11.52.106 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they may have been, because the Ulster-Scots language has traditionally been something passed down from word-of-mouth and, as it says in the article, the literary tradition was for a time almost extinct. It also mentions in the Ulster Scots dialects article that since the 1990s there have been attempts to create new orthographies. Whether any of us like it or not, though, Ullans is given a parity of esteem with Irish under the GFA, so we've got to try and reflect that on here. We can't just leave out Scots names because we don't agree with we don't think they're "authentic" enough. JonChapple Talk 08:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely Wikipedis has to reflect real facts, not made-up placenames that came about as a result of the GFA? Since when has Wikipedia been subject to the GFA? Even if the language was passed down by word of mouth it would not be unusual for someone somewhere, at some time, to have noted what Scots-speakers called places. The sources you provide are extremely dubious, and that should be pointed out in the article. 93.158.79.70 (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How are NI/UK government sources "dubious"? The only sources that could be more reliable would be sources from an Ulster-Scots Academy, but they're not built that yet. JonChapple Talk 08:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And which article? Your grievances are already addressed at Ulster Scots dialects (a little too much so, in my opinion). JonChapple Talk 08:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you make an account if you want to discuss this? Your IP-hopping's starting to confuse me! JonChapple Talk 08:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP's arguement can be easily put back at them – what about the Irish translations of place names that are fairly recent? Accorind got IMOS we have to include the Irish version of placenames in the infobox, however many of the modern versions used are provided by Logainm which creates Irish versions of place names. Surely many of these placenames (especially the Irish versions of places based on English such as Newbuildings etc.) are neologisms that are thus also highly dubious then?
 * Wikipedia works on sources, the above sources i believe meet reliability and verifiability so that is a weak arguement against them. If anything the IP has to prove that the sources are dubious. Mabuska (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hispania/HRT
I don't dispute the fact that the team referred to themselves as Hispania Racing; however the vast majority of evidence (including the FIA's official entry list) suggests that they were entered as HRT F1 Team:. As far as I can see, only this website has them entered under the name Hispania Racing. That is why I altered the table on the 2011 page. «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * By jove, you're right. I'll self-revert. JonChapple Talk 09:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Joe Calzaghe
Howdy. I don't know how you, Mabuska and others managed to get British in the infobox without alot of complaints, but it certainly is good to see. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * None of us did. Snowded did. Mabuska (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. Wasn't me! JonChapple Talk 10:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoah, I may need smelling salts. GoodDay (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

..unless you cover it with another ..
Oh I do like the sex pistols. Anyway Jon there is a question I will ask. As this is the place to do it. You claim the Ulster Banner the de facto flag of NI, where is the proof of such ? I do enjoy a good read but as far as I am aware it stopped being the flag in 1972, and was replaced with the Union Flag , maybe I am mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.218.248 (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It stopped being the de jure flag in 1972. JonChapple Talk 16:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes by law (as de jur means) but do you not acknowledge other de facto flags in respect of NI ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.218.248 (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge plenty of others are used, of course, but on an international level when the need arises to represent NI it's the Banner that's used. It's the closest the province has to a government-sanctioned national flag and should be used as such; just as FIFA, PGA Tour, the Commonwealth Games, etc., do. JonChapple Talk 16:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes NI ,being a province of the UK ,represented at international sports has used different flags in the past aswell being a F1 fan you would remember one example that springs to mind .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.206.39 (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, some race officials once mistakenly flew a tricolour for Eddie Irvine, who later asked for a special shamrock flag to be flown when he was on the podium (which FOM wouldn't). JonChapple Talk 17:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I remember Irvine was not happy as he didnt relate to the tri-colour, even while residing in Dublin , it was a stupid act by the FOM . Jordan Racing may have raced under the Irish flag but thier other podium finishers had the correct flags flown . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.206.39 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "My helmet's orange because I'm a Protestant from Northern Ireland, and it's got green on it because I don't want to get shot by the IRA." :) JonChapple Talk 18:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Often misqouted, here is the full paragraph :D "The orange is because I'm a protestant from Northern Ireland, King Billy and all that shit. Really though, I was just looking for a bright colour, and obviously Senna had the yellow, so orange made sense. It's more a case of the story fitting the colour than the colour fitting the story, if you see what I mean. And the green stripes are for Ireland. Same pattern as Senna's helmet, see."http://www.andrewmueller.net/display.lasso?id=68

Great Britain and Ireland
Hello, Jonchapple. I realise there's one obvious problem with either "two states on the two islands" or "two states on Great Britain and Ireland", to whit: only one of the states – the U.K. – is in fact on both islands. The ROI is on the island of Ireland only. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Very true. Maybe just use "two sovereign states" or something similar, without specifically referring to the islands? JonC Talk 20:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would make sense to me. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. JonC Talk 20:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

County Donegal
"Please go to talk page and state reasons for using a non-officail language . IF YOU CAN PROVE THIS IS AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE PLEASE DO (http://www.gov.ie/)" Do not use languages that are not officail state languages, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IMOS#Place_names "For articles on places on the island of Ireland, show the modern name in English, Irish and, if appropriate, Scots in the infobox if the article has one." If appropriate, considering that its NOT an official language of the State , its NOT appropriate , if you can prove the Ulster Scots is an officail language include it , but only Irish and English are so stop using it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.46.142 (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replied on talk:County Donegal. JonC Talk 09:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah got it . Still does NOT provide in accordance with citations that its an official language in that state . So leave it out as not approtiate . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.46.142 (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please continue this over there. JonC Talk 09:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * JonC – thanks for your support in this matter, appreciated. Denisarona (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No probs. JonC Talk 09:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.46.142 (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Have to admit, I never knew that the Americans abreviate Doctor as 'Dr.', while we in the British and Irish Isles abreviate it as 'Dr' (without the full stop). I stand corrected! Apologies for the mistake, and, genuinely, thanks for putting me straight. Laggan Boy (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! The general rule is, contractions (such as "Mr", "Dr", "Ltd", etc.) that end with the letter of the word being abbreviated don't take a full stop, but truncations (like "Inc.", "Prof.", "Rev." and the like) do, because the end of the word is missing. Having said that, many British and Irish publications nowadays even leave a full stop off truncations, too. Hope that helps! — Jon C.  ॐ  09:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed
Hi Jon, I began a discussion on Talk:2000 Tandragee killings as to whether or not its title should be changed. Your input there would be appreciated. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

R.E.M.
I just wanted to note that you're right, in American English collective nouns are almost always singular in construction. Therefore the phrase "R.E.M. is my favorite band..." would be used by an American over "R.E.M. are..." and so on.

I found it interesting to see that the page began as "R.E.M. were..." only to see it changed a few moments later (I expected as much) to "R.E.M. was..." and saw your edit note. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up, I think I knew that anyway but just had a momentary lapse of concentration. I suppose it all depends upon whether you're treating REM (or any band) as a single entity or a collection of people – in England, it's almost always the latter. The same usually goes for sports teams too. "REM was..." sounds very odd indeed; to this Englishman's ears, at least. JonC Talk 20:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I first noticed this on the Depeche Mode page a while ago where an edit war of over the grammar broke out. I found it odd at first that an editor was insisting on using the plural for Depeche Mode until I did a little research. I find the logic on both ends to be interesting. I have no idea when that logic diverged. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll on ArbCom resolution – Ireland article names
There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland,Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Pars pro toto
Why are you reverting with the reason that I meant "Britain" doens't mean Great Britain (i.e. the island)? I've added in that "Britain" is sometimes used to mean "United Kingdom". "Britain" does mean "Great Britain" – it even says it in the Great Britain article. It is defined as such in the Collins English Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary. --HighKing (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have self-reverted for now. My issue is that Britain isn't just a name for an island that's been applied to a larger state – it originally referred to Britanny ("Little Britain") and its inhabitants and later to a Roman province, so I'm not sure it's strictly appropriate here. The usage to mean Great Britain is much more modern. JonC Talk 15:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. There's probably lots of examples where "Britain" has a different meaning.  But equally valid and true are examples where "Britain" (and even "Great Britain") are used to mean "United Kingdom".  BTW, equally your addition of "Ireland" to Totum pro parte is not correct.  It explains that In Geography, some placenames are commonly used to refer synonymously to a larger area than is strictly deemed correct but in this case, use of "Ireland" to refer to the state *is* correct.  The name does not incorrectly refer to a larger area – it can be used to correctly refer to the smaller area also.  Unlike "America" for the USA.  --HighKing (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just re-read that part of Totum pro parte and realised it's the article that's wrong! Surely it should be "some placenames are commonly used to refer synonymously to a smaller area than is strictly deemed correct"? The United States is smaller than the Americas, Northern Ireland smaller than Ulster, Ireland (the Republic of) smaller than Ireland (the island)... JonC Talk 16:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. It's used when a part is referred to by mentioning the whole.  So people say "America" (the whole) when the mean USA (the part).  In your case by adding "Ireland", you're incorrectly stating that people say "Ireland" when they mean the state and not the island.  This is not an example of Totum pro parte because – it is correct.  It is not an error.  It is incorrect to infer that the island is the "whole", and that the "state" is the part.  If someone says "I live in Ireland", this does not mean that the person is referring to the island to mean the state, since the name of the state is also "Ireland".  --HighKing (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Britain is an official short form of the UK used by the British government, so if we're going down the official usage path it's also not incorrect to refer to the UK as "Britain". Do you have a problem with the re-worded sentence I added? JonC Talk 17:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Britain an official short form? I don't think it is.  Is there a ref for that anywhere?  --HighKing (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's on the Terminology of the British Isles article, ref'd with the Guardian style guide. JonC Talk 17:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it says what it says in the Guardian style guide. But I don't think that it is right and I don't think there's anything official about it.  In the Great Britain article, it says The term Britain, as opposed to Great Britain, has been used to mean the United Kingdom, for example in official government yearbooks between 1975 and 2001. Since 2002, however, the yearbooks have only used the term "United Kingdom" - that seems to indicate that it isn't official.  Your reworded sentence is fine.  I'd really prefer if you addresssed the Totum pro parte article - it's not even intended as a list, so including a example that isn't correct (and at the very least, unsupported and unreferenced) just strikes me unnecessary and perhaps could be interpreted as a little pointy.  --HighKing (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yearbooks or no yearbooks, "Britain" is still used by HM Government on a pretty regular basis: this website, for example, only launched a few months ago, with a mandate for "celebrating, inspiring and accelerating enterprise in the UK". I meant the Ireland sentence on the Totum pro parte article when I was talking about "my reworded sentence" – that's a yes, then! I don't honestly see how it's much different to the "Ulster" example next to it, other than in the sense of official government usage – is that what you're pushing for here? The powers that be in Northern Ireland used "Ulster" for NI in an official capacity right up until the whole ugly business of the late 60s; would you have accepted Ulster being stripped out if we were writing this encyclopaedia 40 years ago? Just trying to understand where you're coming from. Best, JonC Talk 21:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To correctly be considered "Pars pro toto", using the name of the larger entity must be strictly "incorrect" when referring to the smaller entity, hence using "Ulster" instead of "Northern Ireland". By including the "Ireland" example, what you're actually saying is that it is strictly incorrect to use "Ireland" to refer to the state, when in actual fact it is not incorrect at all. On that basis, you could equally include "Ireland" in the "Totum pro parte" article as an example of using "Ireland" to refer to the island, which would be an equally incorrect example. The example of "Great Britain/Britain" instead of UK is a good example of this (although there's a case that "Britain" isn't a particularly good example, depending on which dictionary definition you rely on). --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't really addressed my point here. Why is Ulster any more incorrect than "Ireland"? Because it's no longer a name with any official currency? JonC Talk 05:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just looked back at this and think I understand what you're saying a bit more now, but I still disagree. Ireland the island/civilisation is the origin of the name and has had that meaning since time immemorial; Ireland the state has existed for 90-odd years, so it's clear the state is named after the island. Equally, if "Britain" is used by officially by the UK and its government, by your reasoning we could include (Great) Britain on the Totum pro parte page as an example of its usage to mean the UK is also applied to the island. That, of course, would be wrong as it meant the island first – it's the same with Ireland. JonC Talk 08:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of BISE ;-) Mabuska (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jon, do you mind if this discussion gets moved to the Article Talk page?
 * In response - dealing with Ireland first in totum pro parte. First off, yes, the name of the island is the origin of the name of the state.  No question.  Whether it is a synecdoche has nothing to do with what was named "first" - in fact, language changes all the time and meanings change, so what might have been an example in the past may no longer be an example.  But for it to be "totum pro parte" the term for the whole must be used to refer to a part of it.  So the whole is the island, Ireland.  The part of the island, the state, is also Ireland.  How can you refer to "Ireland" the island to refer to "Ireland" the state and it's clear that the whole is only referring to the part? Is there an example where the island is referred to as meaning the state (and not just the state actually being referred to?)  I understand what you are trying to say, but you are incorrect.  On a practicaly note, I struggle to come up with a meaningful example.  For example, if you say "Ireland uses the Euro", you can't say that is an example of referring to the island to actually mean the state, because "Ireland" is the actual name of the state, so that usage is correct and not an example of totum pro parte.  It would make perfect sense if the name of the state was something different, like "Republic of Ireland" - but it's not.
 * In relation to you comments on Britain. I found this old page where it says On this site the term ‘Britain’ is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  If you accept that the island is called "Britain", this is an example "pars pro toto" (and not of totum pro parte as you said above) where a part (the island) is used to refer to the whole (the UK).  If, on the other hand, the "meaning" of Britain has changed to refer to the UK, then it shouldn't be used as an example.  In this case (and due to the find of the archived page), I'd probably leave out the "Britain" part because it isn't a good example - it's what I was alluding to above when I said "although there's a case that "Britain" isn't a particularly good example, depending on which dictionary definition you rely on".  --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are more likely to find an example where someone uses England when they actually mean UK. Fmph (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Still waiting Jon ... and can we move this to the Article Talk page. @Fmph - my point exactly.  How can you create an example where someone uses "Ireland" when they actually mean "Ireland"...  --HighKing (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. JonC Talk 13:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jon. --HighKing (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No probs. I know what I'm trying to say but don't really have the time or energy (or perhaps mental faculty) to argue my case any more. I suppose it does come down to official, gov't-sanctioned usage in the end. You're probably right on this one. JonC Talk 13:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Official government sanctioned usage? Oh that would open up a whole can of worms for some articles. Wouldn't be the first time the governments sanctioned usage was ignored... Mabuska (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more, especially regarding both those articles. --HighKing (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bit confused, HK. I was conceding that you were right owing to the fact the Irish state calls itself "Ireland" officially! JonC Talk 17:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * um - don't think we're disagreeing.... So as controversial it this might be, the Derry article should be located at Londonderry, in my opinion, cos that's the official name.  The Republic of Ireland article should be at "Ireland" - although it can't because the island article is located there.  So it should be at a different title.  Given the historical connotations and implications associated with "Republic of Ireland", an alternative title would be better.  Not really pushed as to what alternative - something like "Ireland (republic)" would be fine by me.  --HighKing (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm pro-status quo, but that's another chat for another page. JonC Talk 18:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Belfast
Hi Jonchapple, I'm sure you are already aware that Belfast is under 1RR troubles restriction. To be honest I agree with both the IP and RepublicanJacobite that your edit here does not have consensus so I suggest that you take it to the talkpage. Bjmullan (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops! No, I'd completely forgotten. Shite. There's no way to revert my edits without undoing everyone else's too, is there? JonC Talk 17:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a tag to the talk page, lest other people also forget. JonC Talk 17:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would just leave it for now as technically the IP reverts don't count. Bjmullan (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So how come it's under 1RR? Because it was the centre of a lot of the violence? To be honest I didn't forget – I didn't know it was covered. Are all major NI cities covered by the Troubles restrictions? JonC Talk 17:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest virtually any NI related article could be considered part of the restriction. I think they say if in doubt consider that it is. I think you were just about to get into an edit war anyway so best playing by the book. Bjmullan (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your opinion, by the way? Are you in agreement with the IP and RJ? JonC Talk 17:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you don't have consensus for the change so go to the talkpage. You don't want to get into trouble after you have just received a barnstar :) BTW I don't think the barnstar is displaying on the userpage? Bjmullan (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, I meant about the info itself, rather than my trying to include it. Is it not working for you? They're supposed to be in a drop-down box at the bottom with a "show" button – works on my computer but maybe not for other people...? JonC Talk 17:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was collapsed and I didn't initial see it :) As for the edit I don't know if adding a note that something comes 17th in any list is worth anything. In fact just checked the discussion and here is my comment. I noticed that others have now joined the reverting. BTW I see that we both share an interest in Ireland and motorsport! Bjmullan (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, I knew I'd come across you somewhere else. Are you looking forward to Suzuka? To be honest I hope Vettel walks it, would rather the boy just gets the championship out of the way so we can concentrate on the racing again. It's been a cracking season on track, even if the title has been a walkover. JonC Talk 18:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Been a great season. I'm an Alonso fan but my motorsport interest goes beyond F1 into WRC, IRC, Sportscars and cars in general and Porsche in particular. Bjmullan (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I used to follow the BTCC and WRC when I were a lad, but gradually lost interest. Tried to get into Indycar but it does nothing for me. I only got back into F1 last year... switched off during the (yawn) Schumacher years. JonC Talk 18:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I support your edit, Jonchapple. Last time I checked, Belfast was within the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, GD. You would certainly be correct on that front. JonC Talk 20:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC
I've raised an RfC for Talk:Kingsmill_massacre to get some outside opinions. --Flexdream (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice one. Think that's probably a good move. JonC Talk 20:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll be interested to see what comes in. --Flexdream (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The RfC responses from the genuinely impartial and uninvolved show what reasonable editors think. It's encouraging to know that there's some impartiality on Wikipedia. It might still prove necessary to take this further if there's still not a consensus. Regards and thanks for the advice. --Flexdream (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it. It was your idea and it's proved very successful indeed. I think RfCs may be a good avenue for these sorts of disagreements for the future – as you say, once the usual suspects are taken out the equation the response is often very different. JonC Talk 11:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Hope you're enjoying your motorsport. Despite the RfC we've not got a consensus, though Bjmullan seems to have noted the contributions no-one else seems to have moved. So the next step I think is mediation. It's not clear if you could currently edit the talk page but it's possible (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Block_Query). Do you want to ask about that, or I could? I think any mediation would be devalued if you, or anyone else, couldn't take part. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

115.113.187.130
115.113.187.130 appears to be an inexperienced editor, perhaps if you engaged the user in discussion directly rather than through edit summaries, it might yield better results to end his edit warring. Although I must admit I too am a little concerned over the use of an encyclopedia to cite another encyclopedia. Perhaps a better source can be found or more agreeable wording can be reached.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I'll leave a message on their talk, although I'm not sure how much good it'll do. JonC Talk 14:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kudos, nice editing on Kenneth Branagh! In regards to 115.113.187.130, at least you will be able to say you tried.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

UKIP
Valid point, but wanting english independence is not the same as a devolved england with same status as the other countries of the UK. Goldblooded (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, but that article covers autonomist movements too. It would be incorrect to have UKIP and the English Democrats in the Proposed state section above, as they don't want full independence like the England First Party, but they do want a parliament and autonomy for England so they're correct where they are. Best, JonC Talk 11:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you sir for your message on my page :) Ive learnt my lesson now and ive been unblocked :) Goldblooded (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it. Just try to stay out of trouble... ;) JonC Talk 17:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Tarring and feathering in Northern Ireland
Hi Jon, remember our discussion about people having been tarred and feathered in Northern Ireland? Well, this punishment was meted out in 2007 to a drug dealer on the south Belfast estate of Taughmonagh.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jeanne, just found the news report. One symphathises with the drug dealer... and it's not very often I say that. JonC Talk 09:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Aren't the pictures horrific? In the case of the girls being tarred and feathered for having dated British soldiers, their heads were often shaved in addition to or in lieu of the tarring and feathering. How cruel. Arbitrary punishment meted out by a mob...shudder.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It still continues to a lesser and far less horrific extent for humiliating grooms-to-be before their wedding... though the tar is usually something more benign such as egg. Mabuska (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Shudder indeed. Mob justice can be terrifying, especially when it's for ethno-religious reasons... JonC Talk 14:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Counties of Ireland
Hi Jonchapple, I noticed you undid this edit, though I do not quite understand your remark as to the non-free images, because these files are on the county pages already. Would you explain to me? Lotje ツ (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Lotje, you're right, the images are being used on the county pages already, but under a non-free, fair use licence. The ones on the Counties of Ireland page are all free images, be it user-created or in the public domain. I don't quite understand the logic as to why non-free images can't be used on the Counties of Ireland article, but it appears they're not allowed. Best, JonC Talk 14:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay Lotje ツ (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

John Weir
Incredible as it sounds, John Weir is an Irish citizen as he holds an Irish passport. I have added a source to confirm this. I would have also imagined him to have taken up British citizenship after he'd joined the RUC.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just saw your edit. How very strange! Although, presumably, all the SF ministers in the NI Executive, or at least the ones elected to Westminster, still have British citizenship. McGuiness definitely does. JonC Talk 08:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Uck sure, he's suppossedly a British spy, of course he'd keep his passport lol :-P Oh and thanks by the way! Though i'd have called it an unhealthy dose, and hopefully you don't mind i altered it slightly to state so lol. Mabuska (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, of course not. I was being facetious anyway... ;) JonC Talk 16:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My latest article
Jon, I think you might be interested in taking a look at my latest article: 1989 Jonesborough Ambush. It's a hot topic now and there are plenty of people in Ireland and Britain who are beginning to squirm as the Inquiry gathers up speed and Pandora's box inexorably creaks open letting out all the musty wee secrets.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another job well done, Jeanne. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, by the sounds of things. JonC Talk 20:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Yes, I did! Eventually. This is what happens when I edit with no coffee on a small screen. :-/ KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

James I
This is to let you know that I have moved your comment at Talk:James I of England:. Obviously undo if incorrect. DrKiernan (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, only just noticed my mistake. I got an edit conflict with you when trying to strike it. JonC Talk 14:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Bacon sandwich
It's obvious that there is not consensus for the change. Leaving it for a while then coming back to make the change is not good editing, if I'm allowed to be frank. If you want to break the deadlock, why not consider drafting an RfC on the question? --FormerIP (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're allowed to be frank, but I think you've misread the situation. I'm not trying to make a change; it's you and the IP that have made a controversial change to the article – I merely reverted the IP's edit. Per BRD, I'd rather you self-revert to the consensus version pending further discussion. JonC Talk 22:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I think I'm getting confused between the various articles where this has been an issue. And, looking back at the talkpage, it looks like it was actually me who suggested the wording you reverted to. Duly embarrassed, and I've struck the completely wrong part of my comment above. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, happens to the best of us. Glad it's sorted (for now). JonC Talk 09:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

IMOS
That was the example alright. Hopefully we will get decent feed back on it now. BTW I read above, you might be interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#IP_hopping_editor, you have prior http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Culture_of_Northern_Ireland&diff=437845746&oldid=436945278 maybe he likes you :).Murry1975 (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's hope so. It's always good to have an outside opinion. And there's a ton of these guys, but as long as the articles in question aren't protected and Wikipedia allows editing by those with no account I think we'll always have this problem. Maybe we should petition Jimmy Wales to make registration mandatory for British/Irish articles only! It would certainly make life a great deal easier... — JonC ॐ 11:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt mind "Wiki everyone can edit but register for free first", it would allow better "minding" of input.Murry1975 (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It won't happen, though, as there's too much of an attachment to the "anyone can edit" (with no string attached) ethos. Madness, in my opinion, when we're trying to build a reliable encyclopaedia. — JonC ॐ 12:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Tandragee killings
Hi Jon, your imput is needed on Talk:2000 Tandragee killings. IMO, mentioning Frazer as having been the club's manager is pointy and violates BLP.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom
Howdy Johnchapple. To follow up on your post at my talkpage. Oddily enough, the fact that my post has been struck, following the pressure for it to be struck - has ineffect demonstrated the very warning I gave to the newbie. In otherwords, I got my point across to him, afterall. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't accept a topic ban, GD. That you're getting under certain people's skin so often by doing absolutely nothing wrong and upholding this encyclopaedia's main tenets is a fault of theirs, not yours. FYI, I opposed it on the ANI page. — JonC ॐ 21:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've accepted it for the sake of my mentors. GoodDay (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Constructor vs. chassis names
Hi. A couple of points. Firstly, please go refresh you familiarity with WP:BRD. After I reverted your alterations the polite thing to do is to ask me why, not to start an edit war. So, why did I revert you? Well, as I pointed out in my edit summary your interpretation is wrong. "Lotus" is not a constructor, it is a chassis "make" that has been used by three different constructors: Team Lotus, Lotus Racing, and Lotus GP. A constructor is an entity that constructs a chassis and/or engine. They each appoint a name for their chassis and engine and this is termed a make. Where the chassis and engine are manufactured by different constructors the two names are combined, chassis first, to form a car make. Constructors' Championship points are awarded to each car make and, where the constructor of the chassis and engine are different, the championship title is awarded to the constructor of the chassis. I realise that this has become confused in recent times, and for that I entirely blame Martin Brundle. He has been very repetitious in hammering home his understanding that the "constructor" is the combination of chassis and engine names, but although he has a very big platform to broadcast from this doesn't make him any the less wrong. The most recent version of the Sporting Regulations have made a complete dogs' breakfast of this position, presumably because journalists have started thinking that Brundle was right and the FIA were wrong, but certainly in the time of Team Lotus (proper) the situation was very clear. In the words of the 2001 Sporting Regulations "The constructor of an engine or rolling chassis is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which owns the intellectual property rights to such engine or chassis. The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor." In other words, Team Lotus were the constructor of Lotus chassis. Hope this clears up my reasons. Bye for now.  Pyrop e  16:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, no worries, sorry for the revert. It wasn't the Brundle thing that I got wrong – I know "McLaren-Honda" isn't a constructor – but as far as I knew, "Lotus" is the constructor, it's just been the constructor name used by cars for three separate entities. This constructor/team thing ain't half confusing. So there's been two F1 constructors called, for example, Renault and Mercedes? The current/second iterations of those teams aren't/weren't run by the same company. Best, — JonC ॐ 11:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's ok, no worries. For the examples you cite, in each case the organisations behind them were the Regie (i.e. Renault S.A.) and Mercedes-Benz, respectively, so only one constructor in each case. In detail, Renault is a little bit more complex as Genii kept the Renault name for a year after they took full control. Technically, in that year the constructor was Genii and had they won the WCC the championship would have been awarded to Lopez, Lux, Bouiller and co., not to Renault S.A. I know the issue is very far from clear in the popular understanding, that's why I'm not in the slightest advocating that we get technical in our definitions here. To really have been aware of the technicalities you probably do have to be the type of saddo (like me) that likes to read through each year's Tech and Sporting Regs to look for detail changes. It really doesn't help when most of the English speaking world had had more than a decade of Brundle continually passing on incorrect information, and with the sort of financial horse trading we have in modern F1 muddying the waters still further. Hope it is sunny where you are.  Pyrop e  16:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

1984
Regarding the hounding of GoodDay on his own page, I see that Wikipedia is getting more Orwellian by the hour. The Wikipedian dickers are out in full force.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't it pathetic? Do these sad, sad people really have nothing better to do than watch his talk page, just waiting for him to slip up? At least the Thought Police got paid... — JonC ॐ 08:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There is only so much people will put up with when they're using their precious time on a project that is just hounding and hassling them. And then they wonder why seasoned editors are quitting in droves.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The worst offenders are usually the ones that never do anything productive themselves, never editing and simply gaming the system to remove those they don't like. I've had it happen to me when I was last blocked. You just have to make sure you always stay within the rules and never give them any ammunition, which unfortunately GD has done here. I still think there's something fundamentally wrong with the project, though, if you can be punished for something you've said on your own damn talk page. — JonC ॐ 14:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI golfers
McIlroy and McDowell page protection requested, should make life a bit easier. Murry1975 (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

PS you're turning up on my watchlist alot latety lol. Murry1975 (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice one, was going to do it myself but for some reason my Twinkle isn't working and couldn't be bothered to do it manually. Am having a bit of a return to spending vast amounts of time here recently after a four-month break, nice to see things haven't changed! Haha. — JonC ॐ 14:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not on as much myself lately, life is good even if the weather is not. Didnt know I could twinkle it, still learning!! Things dont change much around here, well at least not at a normal speed. Take care. Murry1975 (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the tab at the top of the page that says "rpp". "warn" is also rather good for telling off disruptive IPs. :) — JonC ॐ 14:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, didnt know that. I have used warn before, and welcome, but not the others. Will get used to it. Wish it had a "stop being a twat" one, I think I would use that most of the time. Again thanks for pointing that out bud. Murry1975 (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Londonderry Port
Saw some of the changes you made to the article. There's perhaps a wee subtlety that has been missed. The Port Authority is called "Londonderry Port and Harbour Comissioners". But the port itself is also referred to as "Derry Port". Would it make sense to include an "also known as Derry Port" in the lede? --HighKing (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, fine with me, from a quick Google I can see it's also occasionally in use. The question is – brackets or commas? Please note this will also affect your vote on the Republic of Ireland "also known as" issue. :) — JonC ॐ 11:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol :-) I've already "fixed" my !vote at the "Republic of Ireland" page.  Only abbreviations need to be put in parenthesis, so I'm fine with Prop4.  --HighKing (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So you have! Good job I didn't put Derry Port in brackets then. Haha. — JonC ॐ 18:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion should of occurred at the article's talk page. Mabuska (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thought you should see this
Hello Jonchapple. Since I didn't provide a proper link in the edit summary I wanted you to see this conversation User talk:Drmies to help explain why things were done the way they were regarding the personal attacks on the blocked editors talk page. I also wanted to leave this message in case the thread gets archived so you will know what the threads title is. As both of them may be busy today and might not see your edit for a bit I returned the page to the requested version. Thanks for your time and my apologies if this is upsetting in any way. MarnetteD | Talk 13:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, Marnette. I hadn't seen that particular discussion so you did the right thing reverting me. Thanks for letting me know. — JonC ॐ 13:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As on it goes....
Doing the rounds checking edits and i see that a certain editor keeps popping up directly after you've made an edit as if they are continually stalking your every move. Whilst that's no surprise as we know they have been stalking you for months, it really has crossed the line of harassment. If you were a vandal or trouble editor then this editor would have justification for their behaviour but as we know that's not the case especially when they either decide to initiate an edit-war or make highly POV edits to an article your presence has alerted them too. The stalking appears to be bringing into clear view a pattern of disruption on Wikipedia from the stalker. Collate the evidence as it is building quite well.

Mabuska (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried reporting the individual in question once before, but they do bugger all about hounding, it seems. Just part-and-parcel of editing here, unfortunately. — JonC ॐ 12:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder is there any correlation between this caused this. Not even a day apart. Mabuska (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, hilarious. It was completely nonsensical. You should change your username to "Royalist Young Irelander". — Jon C.  ॐ  11:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * United Irishman Royalist would be a more recognisable one lol. Mabuska (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rory McIlroy
Morning JC, I have re-edited the lovely personnal section after an editor had removed cited material. I think I have made it closer to what the refs say, "Asked in an interview with the PGA Tour Web site last year whether he considered himself more British or Irish, McIlroy answered, “Pass.”", "McIlroy noted that he held a British passport and acknowledged that all of this was “a bit of an awkward question, still.”" and "Obviously being British and playing well at the British Open, you know, there was a lot of media attention.". It now reads (after a couple of goes) "has been reluctant on occassion to self-identify as British or Irish although holding a British passport and also has referring to himself as British on others." I think this is a fair and clear way of representing his answers and the evidence from the refs. As you were the last sensible edit before mine I was wondering what do you think. Should it be swapped around? "refers to himself as British and carries a British passport but on occasions has been reluctant to self-identify as either British or Irish." Murry1975 (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely agree that his reluctance to be drawn into the debate and hoist his flag for either "side" should be mentioned, and agree with your wording. Have just swapped it around a bit and slightly re-worded for aesthetic reasons, see what you think. Great editing, Murry. — Jon C.  ॐ  20:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reads good bud.
 * There is another sports article that I would like your opinion on, Commonwealth Games, the info box states head quaters London United Kingdom, but I was wondering would it more correct in context to use London England or the whole shebang, London England United Kingdom, as the commonwwealth games are contested by each home nation seperately? Cheers bud. Murry1975 (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to London, England, UK, with a little flag icon for England. It makes sense as, as you say, there's no British team and every home nation competes separately. It might be reverted, but if so I'll see you on the article talk. :) Hope you've had a good weekend matey. — Jon C.  ॐ  16:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes you will see me on the talkpage :) If I miss it (still busy) throw me a message, and as for the weekend, I have had 5 days off in two months, so I cant remember what they are like! Murry1975 (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sleeper account? Cuchulainn187? Joined 2006, first edit today, very odd. Wonder who it could be. Murry1975 (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely a sock. I went to revert again but it's all under 1RR of course, so he/she's got away with blanking it for the time being. I think the article needs protecting again. — Jon C.  ॐ  12:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw an IP edit, geo-located to Spain on an Irish issue a few weeks back, cant remember where, then I was looking through SPI's, mainly Factocop, but also Wikipeire, there was a Spainish IP with which Wikipeire commented from. Coincidence probably, but with a sleeper account that old it makes me think about it if nothing else. Either that or its a comprised account- I doubt that. But we should assume good faith and try to engage first. I have re-added the material. I think we will see it diappearimng again. I dont have a template (well I cant find it) in twinkle for the 1RR only 3RR. Maybe a noticification of the rule on his talk page might help. Murry1975 (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea, will do. Ta Murry! — Jon C.  ॐ  11:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:TheOldJacobite
Jon, I appreciate your watching over others' talk pages and in general, I follow the advice given in the essay (not policy), Don't template the regulars.

In this case, however, I felt it called for in my role as the administrator handling TheOldJacobite's egregious request at WP:AIV to block an editor he was in an editorial dispute with. I have noticed he's disturbingly quick to template others and I thought it instructive to use them in his case.

I think TheOldJacobite has potential to show leadership around here, given his interests, energy and skill so I have asked him to do so (see my subsequent comment on his talk page). In any event, however, he's got to temper his behaviour before some other, less patient administrator sanctions him. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Permanent link to the earlier discussions on User talk:TheOldJacobite:. They were subsequently deleted.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, A. B. I didn't know you were an admin, and wasn't aware of that AIV report or TOJ's recent conduct. Template away! Best, — Jon C.  ॐ  19:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your vigilance. I hate it when folks template the regulars however I thought it was perhaps uniquely called for this one time. TheOldJacobite appears to be a very productive editor who takes on some contentious articles to improve so I appreciate his work. He's probably getting pretty frustrated. If there's anything you can do to encourage him and channel him, that would be great; I think I'm probably the last person he wants to hear from these days.


 * The longer I'm an admin the less I feel like a cop or a janitor and the more I feel I need to be a coach and teacher. Today's been a challenging day; I'm not sure if I've set the project ahead or behind:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film
 * User talk:A. B.


 * Time to get to my real job. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Festival of Britain
Despite the name, the Festival took place across the UK, not just across Britain. The Campania spent as much time in Belfast as it did on Merseyside or Tyneside.There was also the large farming exhibition, specifically in Ulster. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Britain most often means the UK, not the island called Great Britain. See the opening sentence of the United Kingdom article: commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain. — Jon C.  ॐ  14:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the other content on your talk: page, I can't believe that you don't know precisely the difference between the two terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Britain is used informally, by the media and the government, to mean the UK. When David Cameron launches an initiative called 'Start Up Britain' or says that during the Olympics "Britain delivered", he means the UK as a whole, not just one island. Why do you think it was called the Festival of Britain? I don't know which comments you're referring to, but I can assure you I know the difference very well. — Jon C.  ॐ  15:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Lotus disambiguation page
Hi, I tried to open a discussion about the Lotus disambiguation page, as you suggested to me, but so far this is a sterile discussion... so far it looks like there's no way to reach a consensus there. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lotus&pe=1& BenjF1 (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Have replied on that page. — Jon C.  ॐ  11:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Béal na Bláth
See? A short civilised discussion on the talk page can produce a stable edit more easily than a knee-jerk revert. Scolaire (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But there was no reason to strip "Bealnablath" out altogether in the first place. — Jon C.  ॐ  09:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see that now. Thank you for discussing. Scolaire (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Food Safety Promotion Board
Could you explain in more detail why the edits I made to Food Safety Promotion Board were deleted please? If it is COI related then is there a way I can submit the article to an editor who can re-write or include the info? There are some details that are out-of-date in the current article. RoisinM18 (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not so much a conflict of interest issue, more that you've rewritten the article to read like an advertisement. External links to Safefood's website and promotional copy aren't appropriate. You also removed the Ulster-Scots and Gaelic names. I'll have a go at a rewrite when I get home, or you can try again in the meantime without all the promotional bumf. — Jon C.  ॐ  13:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks JonC. I'll try a re-write and remove the external links to safefood website and re-submit. RoisinM18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoisinM18 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

lough neagh
Hi Jon, Please can you outline your reason for revert of my edit at the Lough Neagh talk page. I had left it 5 days before making an edit that I had proposed on the talkpage. No one responded so I made the edit. Factocop (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Factocop, sorry, I completely missed the discussion on talk. I'll reply there a bit later. Best, — Jon C.  ॐ


 * Thanks Jon for your contribution at my trial. No way is my edit a direct revert. Complete joke.Factocop (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So you didn't undo the effects of one or more edits, which resulted in the page being restored to a previous version. A version that your sock prefered. Mo ainm  ~Talk  09:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No probs, FC. I know a witchhunt when I see one. I'm glad SilkTork has been sense, at least. — Jon C.  ॐ  09:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm really fed up with wiki. Why can admins not see common sense? Have you ever heard of WP:POLEMIC? I posted 1 comment on RashersTierney's page and he was extremely rude for no reason. I made a note of his comments at my own page and he reports me for doing so...seriously? I can't even scratch an itch without attempts to have me blocked. Why is it POV editors with a finger on the revert button are listened to?Factocop (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Admins? who needs them Factocop (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst I sympathise with your plight, FC, and realise there's obviously elements of the editorship here that would like nothing more than to see you re-permabanned, I do think you should try not to give them an excuse. Lay low, stay away from controversial areas for a while – and don't bait the admins! It's tough medicine, but that's what you need to do. All the best, — Jon C.  ॐ  08:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

British Raj
If you are not familiar with the essay please read WP:BRD and then explain your bold edit on talk:British Raj as why you think that the edit should be made. -- PBS (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I am reverting to the way the page has stood for as long as I can remember. If you want to open a new discussion on the talk page to get your consensus for your changes, I'll participate, but don't lecture me about BRD. — Jon C.  ॐ  15:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My mistake! To be clear, I have not edited the content of the body of the page since February 2006 (and that small contribution is long since gone), so "If you want to open a new discussion on the talk page to get your consensus for your changes" is meaningless. -- PBS (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake also, then. I suppose I'll see Rjensen on the talk then, not you! — Jon C.  ॐ  11:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:One Direction
Left comments on the prior discussion. Regards AdabowtheSecond (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have notified you that I left comments you have not responded while you have been active, could you further opine on my comments AdabowtheSecond (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ireland (article)
No grudges. I'm just a bit of linguist, so... It's been looking strange to me — about those pronunciations — in the English article on Ireland... Lincoln Josh (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

UK City of Culture
I honestly don't see how WP:IMOS applies to this page. Looking at Mo aimn edits, he seems to be systematically going page to page and applying his version of IMOS. 20 reverts in his last 50 edits says it all. But at the same time I'm not sure why you reverted.Dubs boy (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the UK City of Culture 2013 isn't Londonderry or Derry, it's officially "Derry~Londonderry". See the website. Try putting that in if you like, but don't expect it to last long. — Jon C.  ॐ  11:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I had included Londonderry, as the page is not subject to IMOS and given that it is a british related page, I assumed that the official name would be used. I'm sure you can see my rationale. Perhaps a pipe link from Derry~Londonderry could be used.Dubs boy (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Bronte family "Anglo-Saxon"
I'm curious as to why you reverted the recent edits to Brontë_family. The word "Anglo-Saxon" is an extremely odd one to use describing something from the Victorian era - I strongly suspect from the edit history it's a legacy of the wholesale translation of the article from French. In particular the second edit replacing "Anglo-Saxon" with "English" seems indisputably an improvement to me. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree in the case of the second instance and have changed it to "English". 08:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, one out of two ain't bad - but why keep the second intact when it could be "English" or "English-speaking" or "British" or "Victorian" or - well, or anything but something that went out in 1066 AD. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because is the second one specifically depicting an English/British family, or a more general Anglo-Saxon/Commonwealth/whatever one? The term isn't by any means extinct – antiquated, maybe – but what about White Anglo-Saxon Protestants? — Jon C.  ॐ  08:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think the "Anglo-Saxon" in WASP conveys any meaning at all related to the use of the word to describe the principal inhabitants of England before the Norman Conquest - many WASPS are presumably partly or predominantly descended from the Normans. I guess it means roughly "posh" in the context of WASPs, and has about as much to do with Anglo-Saxons as goths have to do with the chaps who sacked Rome. And likewise, I don't think that image is intended to describe specifically the life of women descended from Anglo-Saxons, as opposed to those descended from Normans; I don't think "Anglo-Saxon" is a remotely meaningful word there.


 * What I'm saying is that if a better adjective can be agreed on, by all means, insert it. Personally, I feel "Victorian" would not be a bad choice - conveying the sense that it might include the rest of the Empire. But right now the adjective that is there is entirely meaningless, and the edit which expunged it was right to do so, in my view. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you're being too narrow in your definition, to be honest – of course, Anglo-Saxon strictly means the pre-Norman inhabitants of Britain, but it is also commonly used to mean anyone of the English "race", whatever that means, as in WASP. I'm not opposed to Victorian, though, so feel free to make that change. Cheers, — Jon C. [[User_talk:Jon C.| ॐ  14:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Right-o. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Breif word, hopefully
Odd edits from that IP, defo familar with wiki, me is thinking. VK? He was here before me but something reminds me of what I have read. This looks like. But we should AGF, smile and help intergrate the editor in. Murry1975 (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Either VintageKits/Ruari Og's or Sheodred, oi reckon. Definitely not a new user. Will do my best to AGF when I'm reverting them all over the show. ;) — Jon C.  ॐ  09:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Team Lotus
Doh! My mistake, thanks for catching it. :) --PeruvianLlama(spit) 14:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you're not familiar with the intricacies of Formula 1, it can be confusing that there's two! — Jon C.  ॐ  14:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

UK-France Border in the Channel Tunnel
I wanted to let you know that I mentioned your recent revert of User:LacriFlori5's edit to the United Kingdom article in a discussion on his UserTalk page since he posted a question possibly related to the edit you reverted on my UserTalk page. --TommyBoy (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks TommyBoy, I'll reply there. — Jon C.  ॐ  07:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * User:LacriFlori5 has responded to the message I left on his UserTalk page regarding this issue, and judging by his comments on my UserTalk page, he is not very happy. Any further assistance you can provide in resolving this issue would be most appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have posted a response to your recent comments on my UserTalk page. --TommyBoy (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Re-User:Τασουλα | Τασουλα's extraordinary diatribe.
I have replied to you here regards,  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 11:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

HRT F1
I thought HRT where still officialy called Hispania Racing in the later half of 2011, And they started using HRT Formula 1 Team in 2012. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, it was half-way through 2011 that they adopted the HRT moniker. — Jon C.  ॐ  14:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry Jon I reverted by accident on Northern Ireland rugby union team, I self reverted there after, its the tack pad on the laptop its too sensitive at times and gets me into all sorts of trouble. Sorry again. Murry1975 (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You Can Act Like A Man
He seems to have developed some sort of vendetta because of an interaction we had on the page about Richard III some while ago. I think the edit relates to the spats between you and Ubikwit, who he is probably mixing up with me because I refactored some of Ubikwit's edits on the Brit Israelism talk page. Paul B (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)