User talk:Seivad/A1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dei zio  talk 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Frederico Chaves Guedes
I notice you handily caught some of the sudden back-and-forth about religion on this article. I've been unable to find any evidence that Fred adheres to any particular religion and it certainly isn't an integral part of his notability, so if you're keeping this on your watchlist then feel free to treat it as vandalism if it happens again. You seem to have taken a keen interest in RC patrol for a new account, have you been around before, maybe under an IP? FWIW some eds might be a bit sceptical about your user name at first glance. Nice one,  Dei zio  talk 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Response Thanks for your advice. Abcdefghijklm 15:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR Rule
Thank you for your kind concern. However I will continue to revert, once per day, every single attempt to hide the names of individuals behind their "titles" which is completely inappropriate and not the normal way of naming them, then or now. Wjhonson 13:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no point discussing it with a person who insists that "they" are "Wikipedia". Just in case you've been following this "debate". Wjhonson 13:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You continue to display your complete and utter ignorance with every sentence you write. It is the normal way of naming them. If you knew anything at all about the Peerage you'd know that. (And I don't claim I'm Wikipedia. I claim that, as an Administrator, I can speak about what Wikipedia policy is. I suggest you go and do some research and look at some other articles to find out just how moronic you're being.) Proteus (Talk) 13:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh but you did my friend. You state this is "what we do" and I said who is "we" and you said "Wikipedia" acting as if you were speaking for the entire community.  Well I'm a member of that community, with a few thousand edits under my belt and you don't speak for me.  I am quite familiar with the peerage, and you are incorrect.  No scholarly reference to them ever mentions them merely by their title, but rather also includes their given name.  If you doubt me than post a citation and prove your position.  All this babbling doesn't serve any purpose. Wjhonson 05:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whilst you are perfectly right to provide the first name of a peer, I think the general consensus on Wikipedia is to refer to them with their titles in links and on tables. When talking about them in full (on their own article) it may be appropriate to include their first name. For example, one should refer to the Barroness Thatcher in another article, and in links, but might choose to refer to her as Margaret Thatcher in her own article, or when speaking about her in the past tense (i.e. before she was elevated). In the same way, it is appropirate to refer to Lord Archer or Lord Ashdown in links and other articles, but on their own page it may be acceptable to use references to Jeffrey Archer and Paddy Ashdown. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abcdefghijklm (talk • contribs) 10:10, 21 June 2006  (UTC)


 * Peers aren't normally known by their forenames except on the most formal documents. And then, their surname is never included. In succession boxes, we need a bit of common sense. Using both the name and title makes them too wide. If they were a peer at the time, it should use the title. If not, it should use whatever name they were going by then. And as for the succession boxes for peerages themselves, it makes no sense to include the title. (Earl Rivers was succeeded by Earl Rivers...)  J Rawle  (Talk) 11:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But that is exactly what you're doing in some boxes. The predecessor was Earl St John and the successor was Earl St John....  You don't see how confusing that is?  The wide boxes still fit on the screen, I don't see that as very valid.  Adding a few characters doesn't break anything. The peerage succession boxes state the person's name, and I disagree that only "format" documents include their personal names. Wjhonson 15:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is probably best to discuss this issue on the article talk page, and therefore it can be used to reach a compromise.


 * I have now posted a full citation with link to the Patent Rolls on the talk page for William de Clinton, 1st Earl of Huntingdon which proves my point.  As you can see Proteus continues to revert in the face of evidence to the contrary. Wjhonson 23:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

TOPIC CLOSED Abcdefghijklm 15:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Oh, no problems, it was reversed anyway, so no harm done. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Response Thanks for your help.Abcdefghijklm 15:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your name
Rather.. erm.. unique. How did you come up with it? Oh, I noticed you doing recent changes patrol. Keep up the good work. --GraemeL (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

ResponseThanks for your message. My username is every letter of the alphabet leading up to the first letter of my last name... thought it was something a bit different. Abcdefghijklm 15:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts @ Portugal
Please, read the content you revert before you do it. You recently removed useful and valid content from Portugal under the summary of "rv vandalism". Changes by IP addresses are as important as those from registered users. Afonso Silva 12:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

ResponseThanks for bringing this to my attention. It seems to have happened during an RCP. I always analyse the content of an edit carefully before reverting. I think that it probably happened due to me pressing the backspace during a period of repeated vandalism on a page, as I tend to do about 100 legitimate reverts in every session, this kind of error is possible. As there had been a revert below on the page Portugal I must have thought that this was the page that was under attack, and reverted this by mistake. Thanks again, Abcdefghijklm 15:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Emmett McAuliffe
Hid the image concered using tags initally.

The user himself claims he has 'permisson' but this is only mentioned in a single line on the image... I'm strongly suspecting 'fair-use' but coudln't be sure hence the temporary hide.

Maybe you could approach the user concerned for a more formal declaration?

ShakespeareFan00 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Response The editor has now stopped removing the tags.Abcdefghijklm 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Editor review
Hey, please don't edit Editor-review, but following the instructions at WP:ER. Computerjoe 's talk 17:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Response Please provide further instruction/assistance. Thanks! Abcdefghijklm 17:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Still wrong. You don't edit at all. I'll do this for you! Computerjoe 's talk 18:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although I don't see how I can answer the questions without editing the page. Abcdefghijklm 18:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You substitute it onto a subpage of ER. (using ). Computerjoe 's talk  19:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ja. Computerjoe 's talk 19:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Computerjoe 's talk 19:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza elections
Hi! I noticed that you listed yourself as a candidate for the Esperanza council elections. However, the page says that only people who were a member as of June 21 should be able to list themselves as a candidate, or vote for the other candidates. Therefore, you won't be able to run in these elections. There will be new ones in three months or so, you'll be more than welcome to participate then! --JoanneB 20:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Re. Cardiff Bus Route 53
Hi I notice that you prodded the Cardiff Bus Route 53 article. Since this article has already been prodded once before (by me, as it happens) and the tag was removed, it cannot be deleted via the proposed deletion process, it needs a full Articles for deletion debate instead. I have started an AfD for this article, which you might want to comment on (I have already quoted your prod rationale.) -- AJR | Talk 23:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Response Thanks for letting me know.Abcdefghijklm 07:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you very much for your support for my recent RfA, which I'm quite happy to announce has passed with a consensus of 67 supporting, 0 opposed and 0 neutral. I'm glad I meet your criteria. Most of all, I'm glad you took the time to evaluate my candidacy, as I believe that's what keeps RfA running smoothly, and I'll be working hard to justify the vote of confidence you've placed in me. Please let me know at my talk page if I can assist you with any admin-related tasks, or just if you have any comments on my performance as an admin. Thanks! TheProject 02:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks


My RFA
ARCHIVED on 05 JULY 2006

Note
My talk page was recently archived. Please create a new topic below. Abcdefghijklm 17:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

John Terry
Whilst I admit that he is the favourite it is obvious that this is just press speculation and should be treated as such. The only time that the new captain should be put in the infobox is when it is officially announced by the F.A. Agreed? (Pally01 13:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

RfA thanks


I'll be dishing out warnings from now on.

User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Labour Leadership Contest 2006-7
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. An article on this subject would be more appropriate when the process is under way.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It has actually been confirmed. It is a fact. Some candidates have been announced, and Blair has announced that he is going before the end of 2007. Abcdefghijklm 14:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, you need to substantiate the claims made in the article with sources and references. This report on today's BBC News website; 'Blair defiant over departure date', seems to disagree with what you say. If you can't verify it yet, wait until the official annoucement before creating the article in order to avoid crystal ball deletions.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again, OK, say we don't go along the lines of Blair will go before the end of 2007; but we list the announced candidates for when Blair does resign (which will inevitably happen at some point). Do you think this would be any better/more suitable? Abcdefghijklm 19:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head: "which will inevitably happen at some point". Until there is a press conference and/or a press release stating that Blair is to stand down and that the position of Leader of the Labour Party is open for nominations, this is all pie-in-the-sky stuff. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we can't predict when this is going to happen so the page is redundant. David Cameron will step down from the Conservative Leader position at some point but we don't have a page on that issue yet. Until you have some documentary evidence to back up the claims of your article, the article should remain off the Wiki servers for the timebeing.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  19:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
I really appreciate and admire the maturity you are showing on your RfA page, however, I just wanted to encourage you to consider withdrawing your nomination for now. I've never seen a user with an edit count similar to yours have a successful RfA and I am concerned that, if the RfA continues, it might put you off continuing to contribute to Wikipedia, which would be a real shame. I think you would do much better if you tried again in a few months time. Goodluck with whatever you decide to do. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. It sounds like you were looking for feedback via your RfA? I'm not sure if you are aware of the editor review page, but if you are wanting feedback, especially before any future RfA, you might like to take a look at it. Cheers. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message and I admire the maturity you demonstrated on your Rfa also. I found this link just now that may be of help to you Standards. I don't mean this in any bad at all but maybe you might consider changing you user name because I saw it mentioned on Rfa. It is easy to do if you don't have a huge edit count I think. Good luck to you.-- John Lake  21:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. Stay classy and good look on the RfA next time around. - Draeco 21:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

But but but
I feel that the real nonsense is your username. :) -198.142.113.16 09:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ARCHIVED ON 30th JULY 2006