User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 1 Nov 2007

Murder Ballads[edit]

Hi, Looks like a nice article, To add to a project you just need to add the template line to the discussion page. Here's the one for the roots project, just paste it in:

You'll want to add any individual songs you link to to the roots project as well so we can help out. Take a look at the discussion page on Banks_of_the_Ohio for an example. Dannygutters 17:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Return greeting[edit]

Hi, thanks. Paularblaster 21:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTKC nonsense[edit]

Hi! Thanks for the update. It looks like he's been clobbered at least here at Wikipedia, but I haven't looked at Wikimedia Commons to see if they've deleted him over there. I'm editing from a new account as well. You and I may be starting new, but there sure isn't any shortage of those willing to do the same old vandalism to this poor old site. Anyway, thanks again and please know that I appreciate the info. --PMDrive1061 05:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight[edit]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've alerted the editor who has done the most to develop the article over the past several months, and I personally will take a more thorough look when I have time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The X-Files[edit]

What is your objection to me adding that Fox have officially confirmed and announced that a new X-Files movie is happening? The unedited article fails to mention that and makes it seem as if the film is still unconfirmed. (I am beginning to suspect that's how you want people to see it.)210.54.245.44 —Preceding comment was added at 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done![edit]

It's always refreshing to see the proper word being used - arse. None of this ass nonsense.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's enjoying a nice break right now anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes Day[edit]

Makes sense that vandals would beset Gunpowder Plot on Guy Fawke's day. I fixed several, but it still reads "Fawkes insisted in filling the room with yeast." At this rate, will the page need to be restricted? 70.242.78.37 19:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for at least semi-protection mightn't be a bad idea. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks...one of my edits was vandalized earlier today, I corrected it, and it appears you accidently restored the vandalized sentence. An understandable mistake, because sorting out 'Julian' and 'Gregorian' dates often leads to confusion. As I say in my note in page history, "18:59, 5 November 2007 70.242.78.37 "....it was 11/5 julian, 11/15 Gregorian." In other words "on the Gregorian Calendar" needs to be changed to "in the Julian Calendar." I'm fixating on this because it is the reason I went to the article in the first place...to confirm that in fact today is technically NOT Guy Fawkes day....November 18, 2007 is 'true' Guy Fawkes Day, because November 18, 2007 is November 5, 2007 in the Julian Calendar. ; ) But then....November 15, 2007 is the anniversary of Fawke's arrest. (see what I mean?..Julian/Gregorian considerations can be a real minefield). 70.242.78.37 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Gunpowder Plot[edit]

You're welcome for the semi-protection. :) It's okay, all you did was put an extra space in that messed up the format a bit. Apart from that, your request was fine. :) Acalamari 20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Peaks banner removal[edit]

Hello, and I apologize for not leaving a better description explaining why the banner should be removed. I've been assessing hundreds of film-related articles recently and many more in the past, and based on similar situations, I believe that this article does not fall under WP:FILM's scope. Since the main focus of the article is for the television show (even though it has two paragraphs describing the film), this doesn't warrant the inclusion of the banner. However, the film it is describing, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, should have a banner, which it already does. The funny thing is, I actually remember about six months back or so looking the article over to see if it should include the banner (I remember the name of the article and the image in the infobox), and decided it shouldn't be included at that time either. If you can think of another reason why the banner should stay, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 05:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Rbkl[edit]

I was trying to assume good faith with His Most Serene Highness, but i wont complain that he is gone. Obviously the Scottish stuff he edited was bogus, i can't tell about the obscure European royalty edits though.--Celtus 07:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administratorship[edit]

They're talking about needing new admins. You got any ambitions to wield the mop-and-bucket? I'd support you. --Orange Mike 17:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I am only an egg", eh? You've got a good point; but you edit with a pretty sound and mature hand. (Do I know your SF writing? Email me, if you don't normally see me at cons.) Once you've got the edits under your belt, I'd be glad to support you. --Orange Mike 18:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rabidly Placid[edit]

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_X-Files&curid=30304&diff=169647645&oldid=169601157 --Pleasantville 18:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - Your call. Scarian ^Talk 20:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gee Emm Christlur[edit]

Appreciate the heads-up, and the moral support. I'll keep my eyes peeled. Groupthink 05:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at Bottom[edit]

Question: is it proper formatting to move whole sections in Talk pages down to the bottom (e.g., my talk in Talk:Scottish Clan) when you respond to an earlier message that is already on the talk page? If it is, I was not aware. Thanks! Isoxyl 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I figured, just wanted to make sure! Isoxyl 22:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

210.54.245.44 et al[edit]

210.54.245.44 is back from his ban.

FYI, I filed a checkuser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Concerned_cynic

The actual checkuser hasn't been done yet, but 83.138.145.18, who continued 210.54.245.44's edit war after 210.54.245.44 and Rabidly Placid were both banned, has been blocked as an open proxy. --Pleasantville 21:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, rather than going head first into an edit war again... gain a consensus on the talk page, get the draft of how you think the section should look like and if you have popular support: implement it. That way, any changes made by the I.P.(s) can be construed as unconstructive (Especially if he refuses to partake in building the article without discussing it first) and will thus lead to a longer block. Scarian ^Talk 22:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an ANI report on 210.54.245.44, since he made a 2nd revert. --Pleasantville 22:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

58.104.138.184[edit]

Hi. If you still have the research you've compiled on this individual, would you mind plopping it into my userspace at User:Moonriddengirl/Socks? I feel it would be helpful to present when variant IPs pop up that require action. This morning, two new ones appeared. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Bastiat[edit]

I agree that the link to a blog post is not a reliable source for Wikipedia when used as a source or external link for discussion of issues other than the author's biographical details. I have removed the link accordingly. DickClarkMises —Preceding comment was added at 18:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

John Bodkin Adams[edit]

You haven't responded to my comment so I thought I'd carry on this discussion here for your convenience. Your last comments with my response were as follows:

Malick, your logic is apalling. Your "medieval witch trial" example is way off the mark, and I am unable to see the relevance. Surely, you are not suggesting that a trial in the Middle Ages is roughly analogous to a trial in a court in early 20th century England? This betrays either an ignorance of or fundamental lack of faith in legal jurisprudence. The example I would suggest you examine is that of Sacco and Vanzetti, in which doubts about the fairness and propriety of the trial, as well as subsequent investigations and evidence are all dealt with in an even-handed manner.

You can edit the article to reflect that there are doubts as to the verdict, with references from the books you are so fond of quoting, but you cannot state as a fact something that a court of law has stated is not a fact. He was acquitted by a jury, that is the final word on guilt or innocence. You cannot place him in the serial killers category. Doing so, as One Night In Hackney has said again and again, violates the NPOV policy. There is no way around it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An acquittal was only the final word in guilt or innocence because of the double jeopardy law - which was then in effect and which you may have noted has now been abolished in the UK. However, the point is surely, if a trial was so unfairly run can it ever be questioned? The answer most obviously be yes. All that is required is enough evidence to support the questioning of the verdict - and if you had read any of the books in question (your argument is stubbonly one dimensional and ignores all these alternate views) you would agree that sufficient evidence has been presented. This does not violate any NPOV because the evidence is overwhelming in its support of the view of Adams' guilt.

Meanwhile, I must thank you for your mentioning of the Sacco and Vanzetti case - it supports my argument fully. You have mixed up two things: the content of the article and the categories at the bottom of the article. You praise the article for being even handed in its description of events, yet the categories at the bottom omit 'murderers' and 'robbers'. Do you realise that it therefore 'ignores the trial verdict and agrees with the Adams' article's situation entirely?' Why don't you add these categories to the Sacco and Vanzetti article? Could it be a POV clash that stops you? Or are you running a POV campaign in favour of Adams? Your inconsistency may lead suspicious minds to think this, so please feel free to clarify your precarious position. Malick78 09:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wanted to discuss this with you but you haven't responded so can I assume that you concede the point? If so, I will add Adams to the British serial killer category. Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from my talk page[edit]

There's not really much more that needs to be said. The spadework is done, the scaffold is erected, and there's more than enough rope. Just wait and see I think? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

T.S. Eliot's influence on Bob Dylan[edit]

Thanks for the comment. I'm still pretty new here but feel I am navigation the waters of Wikipedia pretty well. Anyway, here is a link that I have found that *briefly* explains Eliot's influence on Dylan: http://www.unc.edu/~hobson/BobDylan.html . Here is the quote from said source:

"...Academics note the strains of melancholy, romanticism and yearning he shares with the likes of T.S. Eliot. Eliot was a considerable influence on Dylan's work, his poetry flavoring the first decade of his work, from gorgeous strings of music like "Masters of War" to "Girl of the North Country."

And, as most fans will point out, the lyrics from the song Desolation Row (http://bobdylan.com/moderntimes/songs/desolation.html):

"And Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot/ Fighting in the captain's tower/ While calypso singers laugh at them/ And fishermen hold flowers"/

Referecing a person(s) in a song doesn't always indicate an influence, but in this case I think it backs up the claim of Eliot being an influence on Dylan.

I hope this evidence is sufficent enough to allow Dylan to be listed in Eliot's infobox. Since you said you'll take care of it, I shall leave it up to you.

Yours Truly, Rimbaud 2 20:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated good luck[edit]

What are you still doing here? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The vanity.....it burns![edit]

"Samuel Beckett, PunkSinatra, Eugène Ionesco, Harold Pinter, and Jean Genet" - let's spot the vain self-aggrandizement shall we? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re: Sokolowski refs[edit]

He does seem to be notable enough for an article, there are good refs online. I'll write him up as soon as I'm done with Strike!, with refs you can crib from :) <eleland/talkedits> 17:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Former countries[edit]

Welcome, TheOldJacobite, to the Former countries WikiProject! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on a former territory, please tag their talk page with our project template {{WPFC}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
If you wish to use the template {{Infobox Former Country}}, please read the instructions before you get started
Within the project there are also several subprojects. Here are some that you may be interested in:

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! Domino theory (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

That's basically correct - just make sure that the edit summary of the move in the new article includes "merged from article name" or similar (to comply with GFDL).

As for the talk pages, basically do the same thing as the articles, again remembering the edit summaries. I would've said forget a page with just a Project template, but that AfD result probably needs to be kept. ELIMINATORJR 23:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine! ELIMINATORJR 00:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: RABL/Love & Rage Merger[edit]

Thanks, I'll go ahead and remove them. I only suggested the merger as an alternative to an RfD. By the way, I noticed you're a science fiction writer. Mind if I ask if you've published anything I might have read? Servas, Aelffin (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Composer infoboxes[edit]

I was not aware of any policy that discouraged the use of infoboxes in composer articles. Having read the link to which you refered, I find no reason stated there for why this conclusion was reached. As it happens, I copied the infobox straight from the Wagner article, and simply changed the relevant information. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wagner box just appeared a few days ago. (Thanks for the information.) I don't think you will find any other boxes on other composers' pages. If you check the discussion page of the Composers Project you will find a full record of the debate about the bio boxes. -- Kleinzach (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction Western[edit]

[2]

Thank you! Finally, somehow who reads the articles!

I have removed Trigun and Firefly from that list more times than I care to count.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 17:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Romanticism[edit]

"The Romantic might as equally consider himself leading the vanguard of Modernity, as shunning Modernity altogether". That sentence gives me pause and it's worth deleting. I take exception to the implication of modernity in the mid-19th century; pre-Manet, pre-Impressionism; especially in regards to painting and sculpture - its far to early, although I think the other edits were ok. Thanks, for your good work on Surrealism by the way. Modernist (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

RE: Thank you![edit]

Thank you for the revert on my user page. Clearly, that anonymous user is confused about how things work around here, so I will not take offense at his actions. At any rate, I appreciate the revert, and the message you left on his talk page. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nothing to be offended at. He was confused and uniformed. Now, hopefully, he's not confused. Always better to WP:AGF, don't you think? That way in cases like these everyone ends up happy :) And the revert, is, as always, no problem :) Gscshoyru (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Irish question; Outland (film); List of social movements; Paul Garon; Kirk Party; Bairbre de Brún; Kirkpatrick Sale; Steam Detectives; Tim Pat Coogan; James Stephens (Irish nationalist); List of Irish people in World War I; Celtic Revival; United Irishman; Hermeneutics; Anti H-Block; Expressionist dance; Tom Hales; John Morton (politician); Auxiliaries

Cleanup: Philistinism; Scots-Irish American; Theodor W. Adorno
Merge: Scope creep; Surrealist automatism; Sovereigntist
Add Sources: Clan na Gael; List of the most popular names in the 1890s in the United States; The Man Who Killed Don Quixote
Wikify: The Irish Rovers; The Mekons; Black Arts Movement
Expand: Republican Movement (Ireland); De Stijl; DragonMech

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Runner[edit]

I honestly don't know -- I don't watch Blade Runner, but I was spurred to get involved when I found out that it was going through the FAR process. Blade Runner: The Final Cut (apparently the formal title) has nothing in its deletion log, neither does Blade Runner: Final Cut. If it did exist, then the title may not have been within naming conventions. I'm not sure if a separate article is warranted -- how truly different was this 2007 edition compared to the various editions that came before? I'm working on putting together a resources subpage so anyone who wants to help out with the FAR process of Blade Runner can do so. Check it out at User:Erik/Blade Runner -- I have a feeling that this article will need to draw upon many print sources to truly succeed -- using mostly online sources for a 1982 film is going to leave a lot of holes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]