User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 6

Adding pictures
Hello; I was wondering if you would know the answer to a question I have.

I have a book which has an image of an old painting of Murrough O'Brien (an important Irish figure of the 17th C.) I want to add the picture to the Murrough O'Brien page.

Is there any legal problems if I do this?.

Thanks for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inchiquin (talk • contribs) 12:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: The Troubles
Did this take care of it? Glass  Cobra  22:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't get access to the history? What do you mean?
 * As for the vandalism, just wanted to make sure that was what you were referring to. It was a vandal who's a little more skilled than most, to be certain. The "position: absolute" part that he added made it go to the top of the page. Unfortunately, not being a very skilled coder, I can't tell you more than that. It has indeed been fixed though. Glass  Cobra  23:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean. Looks like the text that the vandal included had obscured the top of the page. I'll make sure he hasn't screwed around on any other pages. Thanks for the heads up. :) Glass  Cobra  23:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Contributions to Irish Culture
Hello RepublicanJacobite from Belfast- I am sorry that you do not like the additions I made to the article, I thought that a few pictures would make the section more interesting rather than simply a photograph of St Patrick's Cathedral; what does St Patrick's Catedral have to do with that section anyway? - The reasons in particular for selecting those 2 ladies is simply; they are well known, whether individulas like or dislike them they are legends and more recognisable then most, their Irish connections are documented and verifibale through references, they have identified themselves as Irish American at various stages in their lives that is recorded in print, at stages through their careers in film and music have contributed to Irish American culture and finally the photographs do not infringe on wikipedia copyright rules. Why not select them? They are as worthy as any and to include them does not devalue the others. I intended to add some photographs in the other sections as well because as the saying goes " a picture is worth a thousand words". I believe that these photographs or indeed any in that section would be an improvement but am not going to engage in an editing war over it. I don't understand why the references to these 2 individulas was also removed as references are a positive additions to all wikipedia articles.Vono (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh Wikipedia, how I wish I could quit you
Yo RJ, long time. I haven't retired in an attention-seeking fit of pique, merely tried to restrain myself from devoting hours to the encyclopaedia while I try to finish an ongoing real-life project before the onset of the academic year. As a writer, I'm sure you can appreciate the futility of such attempts to stave off procrastination! All it's done is encourage me to pile up a list of things to do come September. I'm not the individual you identified, though we do look similar I suppose. I haven't seen you editing much lately; surprising given the activity on surrealism and libertarianism articles. In any case, must get back to work, hope you are well, Skomorokh  18:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice Brokeback Mountain reference. EVCM (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen it Aldrich old chum, I'm terribly homophobic. Skomorokh  01:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Stalker
I'll keep that in mind. If you ever get pestered again, just tell me or head to AIV. I'm starting to think longer blocks (2 days-1 week) will be needed.  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We have 1500 admins, almost 800 of which are currently active, and very much so. I'm pretty sure we have the firepower and the patience to deal with whatever army he has in mind. :)  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page! Addbot (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A humble request
Hello, a long time ago you gave me a welcome message on my userpage, thanks for that! Unfortunatly we had some problems after that, and I was pretty new and not the best at improving wikipedia then. Regardless I've kept trying since then and used your criticisms to help improve my editting. And this might be weird, but I don't really know too many other editors on the project and I really need the advice of a good established editor. Since you've helped me out earlier in my editting I'd just like to humbly ask if you can provide help again. I started my first good article review, and I want to make sure I'm not doing anything wrong or overlooking anything. Is there anyway you can just glance over my review quickly and see if there is anything I can add to help the editors improve their GA candidate? My review is located at Talk:George_Rogers_Clark/GA1. Anyway, if you don't want to help then I understand too, everyone is pretty busy, haha! Glad to talk to you again after a few months. --Banime (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's okay I think I got the hang of it. Thanks anyway! --Banime (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not ver civil
Reported here Arzel (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You were in the wrong, both for the personal attack and for citing blogs as reliable sources- you've been around long enough to know that blogs don't meet WP:RS. I offer you a brief opportunity to make a sincere apology. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Cool things down...
I realize things can get very heated in content disputes, but the comment you left on Arzel's user page was over the line. That's the sort of thing people get blocked for. I say this not to attack you, but as someone that has respect for your edit history and a great appreciation for your tireless efforts in fighting vandalism on many of the pages that I watch. I would suggest apologizing to him before this goes too far (there is already an open AN/I report about this, as you know). Please don't allow a relatively minor content dispute to escalate into something that leads to your exit from wikipedia. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I lost my temper over something of no great importance. But, to be clear, my first edit was to revert what I saw as the removal of sourced material by an editor with very few edits.  Then, I reverted twice more, with what I felt were clear edit summaries, so I was not in violation of 3RR.  I had no intention of reverting a fourth time.  The other editor, Arzel, suggested I "take it to talk" when he reverted me the 2nd time, but the talk page discussion indicated he had been outvoted, which I mentioned in my 3rd edit summary.  When he reverted again, I lost my temper.  What I said to him was over the line, I admit that, and I am sorry.  Clearly, it was not the proper response. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  01:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just curious why you used blogs to support this, since a cursory Google News search brought up mainstream media reports which support at least part of what you wrote. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not have anything to do with the material being added to the article in the first place, Ed, I was merely reverting the removal of sourced material. After that things escalated.  I read the argument Arzel made on the talk page, was not swayed by it, and honestly believed he was trying to remove the material because he simply did not like it.  The majority of those commenting on the talk page disagreed with his argument.  Furthermore, Daily Kos was not the only source quoted, so the argument that it was inadequate on its own seemed to be beside the point.  The allegation that I was intentionally edit-warring and pushing false information with inadequate sources is not quite accurate.  I was reverting what seemed to me to be deletion of valid material that other editors had defended.
 * All of this aside, losing my temper, as I have already stated, was unjustified and I regret it. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  01:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I can surely understand why you felt it was legitimate information, at least as far as what I've read about it.  It's unfortunate to lose your temper, but all too human (as I well know!) when pushed in this way.  Best,  Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed. Honestly, I feel the 24 hour block was a bit much.  The question is, do I ride it out, or ask to be unblocked.  Considering the apology has been made and accepted, I think the matter is settled.  The edit-warring accusation is wrong, quite frankly, and is a separate issue from the personal attack.  At least, that is how I see it. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't need somebody else telling you that comment was inappropriate, because you already know that. There will always be revert warriors on Wikipedia, people who claim consensus when there isn't, misrepresent issues, and try to provoke you. You can't let them get the best of you, just make sure your sources are strong, stand firm, and ignore their bullshit. Gamaliel (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gamaliel, your advice is well taken. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  02:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Appology accepted. Look, that Palin was a member of the AIP has been an ongoing rumor for sometime. Records show that she was a registered Republican during the time Clark made her statement. Clark then gave an official statement that she has never been a member of the AIP. Unfortuately, this aspect continues to be pushed giving the impression that there is something to hide, some scandal in that she really was a member. This kind of stuff really needs to be nipped in the bud for BLP reasons, and to keep these rumor from propogating themselves. As a side note, I have been to Ireland. Guinness at the brewery is a must, and the Ring of Kerry and Cliffs of Moher are sites to behold. Arzel (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for accepting my apology. It was sincere.
 * As for the other matter, I really have no dog in that race. The AIP article is on my watchlist, and I reverted what looked like an ideologically-motivated deletion, then I reverted your reversion.  Then, I let the whole thing get to me when, in reality, it mattered so very little to me in the first place.  My untoward comment to you was the result of overall frustration, not simply this tempest in a teacup.  Again, though, it was inappropriate.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  02:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good morning. I had turned the computer off and gone to bed, but I find, over breakfast, that you've apologized very graciously, the other user has accepted very graciously and requested your unblock on my talk page, and all is hearts, flowers, and twittering little birdies in the world of Sarah Palin drama. I unblocked you immediately, of course. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I thank you, sincerely. Unfortunately, I attempted to thank you on your talk page, but I find that my IP is apparently still autoblocked.  Can you do something about that, please?  Thanks.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  14:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I got it; try it now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes
Good day Mr Jacobite.

I was wondering how I go about adding those little boxes to my user page i.e 'this user is interested in the English Civil War' etc.

I have experimented a bit with it but the boxes end up bunched up at the top of the page.

Thanks in advance, Inchiquin (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, getting the formatting right is very important, as I learned the hard way. My suggestion is to create a subpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Inchiquin/Userboxes for the userboxes, and then copy the formatting exactly as you see it on my subpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RepublicanJacobite/Userboxes.  If you need any further help, let me know.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  14:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. Inchiquin (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Rebellion" of Lower Canada
I undid your revert, the one you commented with "Rv; no reason given for wholesale removal of relevant material."

No relevant material was removed: I moved it all to:
 * Bibliography of the 1837-1838 insurrections in Lower Canada

Consequently, I replaced the rather incomplete (and arguably partial) bibliography I had introduced in the article with a neutral list of all the main English-language works that exist on the subject. The rest can still be consulted in the bibliography page. I am happy that so many of the key documents are readable online. -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Battlelore
What was wrong with quoting Allmusic as a reference for Battlelore being influenced by LotR? De728631 (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a whole article on the subject which was wikilinked and which in turn provides references via the band's homepage etc. ;) De728631 (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You might've overlooked that, because the earliest draft from 2004 did already mention Tolkien. Anyhow, I added my source to back up the claim. Let's forget about this and have a stout. :) De728631 (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Newton and Blake
Lithoderm has created this thread: seems like a good place to begin fixing the issue..Modernist (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: AfD
I agree that this will most likely end up as a SNOW, but if I closed it now, there would be screams of admin abuse and I would mostly be smeared all over AN/I. I think it would be better to wait a bit and see what happens. J.delanoy gabs adds 04:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Competition Cams Article
--Jabarke1 (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Competition Cams article has been completely rewritten and re-cited with new, more credible sources. I urge each editor that has previously voted against the articles notability, neutrality, etc. to please reconsider.

Oops!
Really sorry, I didn't mean to blank the whole page! My mistake, won't happen again! Great job with the (potential) vandal control. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 15:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert
Hi there, I noticed with this revert you didn't specify a reason in the edit summary, or leave a note for this editor explaining why you reverted their addition. I assume this reversion was because they didn't cite a source, but this is an easy mistake for a new editor to make. I notice you're a new contributor to antiscience yourself, out of curiosity, what was it that brought you to this page? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK then, no harm done. Your contributions cover a surprisingly broad range of topics - steampunk to Jeffersonian political philosophy! Tim Vickers (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)