User talk:Jtdirl

Earlier comments are in user talk:Jtdirl (Archive 1) user talk:Jtdirl (Archive 2) user talk:jtdirl (Archive 3) User talk:Jtdirl (Archive 4) User talk:Jtdirl (Archive 5) User talk:Jtdirl (Archive 6) User talk:jtdirl (Archive 7) User talk:jtdirl (Archive 8) User talk:jtdirl (Archive 9) User talk:jtdirl (Archive 10) User talk:jtdirl (Archive 11) User talk:jtdirl (archive 12)

Please leave your comments here:

Sorry folks for the previous size of the page. Due to technical problems it could not be archived until now.

Benedict and "enthroned"

Fair cop on the enthroned/installed bit. My bad. But does the word "enthroned" need to be made a link on that page, when the only real text at that link is "Enthroned is a Black Metal band from Belgium."? Seems to me that that's not really what people are after clicking on the link in the Benedict page. Perhaps removing the link in the word "enthroned?" --Golfhaus 06:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Telling us so

You certainly did tell us so about styles making for problems. That said, I'm not convinced this is disastrous. It's basically one user making a big fuss. If it weren't about styles, it'd be about something else. I don't think the basic argument was that nobody would make a fuss about styles, so much as that if putting styles in was otherwise appropriate, it was silly to exclude them simply because someone might hypothetically object on dubious grounds. At any rate, I imagine TD will tire himself out and move on to something else... john k 06:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope

Thanks for the note. I basically reverted everything that user did, without really researching it much because he/she had been a troublemaker. See [1] including the Popes are monkeys edit. Feel free to change it to whatever norms are used. Fuzheado | Talk 12:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question for you

Hi there Jtdirl. I don't understand a reversal you made. Please see my question at: Talk:Style (manner of address) Thanks. Quill 07:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bendict XVI

I made the change requested. What browser are you using, btw? I've edited with Netscape 7, IE 6 and Firefox 1, and never had any problems. BTW, my browser shows the BXVI page as only 54K. john k 02:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Amendments to the Constitution

Can I take it that I'm no longer being accused of damaging Wikipedia? In any case I don't think your hostile tone is very constructive. I'm aware that you're not supposed to do cut-and-pastes. As I explain on the talk page it's intended as an easily reversible interim measure.

You wrote "if you had waited thirty seconds til I had added in the explanation to the talk page" and "next time check why someone has moved a page". You are putting the cart before the horse here. The practice on Wikipedia as I'm sure you know is to argue for a move, persuade other editors that it is a good idea and then go ahead with it. You don't make a difficult to reverse change first and then give your reasons after the fact.Iota 03:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok obviously I've caused a technical mess with the talkpages so guilty as charged on that front. I've not been on Wikipedia as long as you and I'm not an administrator so it was an honest mistake. Iota 03:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I lost the head but apart from anything else it jammed my browser and I lost 4 hours of work on a new article.

That's alright. Those are definitely mitigating circumstances. Iota 17:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Self-reference rights

I certainly maintain my position against ever calling the True Catholic Church the "true Catholic Church" unless (as is the specific purpose of that orthography) one is declaring them to be legitimate at the expense of the entity in Rome the overwhelming majority of humanity considers to be the true Catholic Church...but I note that User:Samuel J. Howard defends his rewriting and renaming of Traditional Catholic to Traditionalist Catholic because "it doesn't matter what people call themselves." Have it out between you,OK?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 05:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope Infobox

FYI - I really liked the new Pope Infobox so I have proposed that it be used for all religious leades on Infobox policy. There have been no objections so far (since Friday). If that continues I plan on helping to update the articles for the new Infobox. If you have comments, concerns please discuss there Trödel|talk 17:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Howdy

Hey, when did you come back? Haven't seen you around in AGES. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Pope's CoA

Looks like you've missed my link to Vatican Radio English website, which confirms the CoA: http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/index.asp . The CoA with a mitre instead of tiara and other elements of the CoA were also confirmed in the radio itself today. Ausir 02:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CfD: Category: Heir Apparent

Hi, you did some work on this category a few weeks ago, and it's been nominated for deletion. Care to vote? Sympleko 10:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

23-F

I believe I have solved the problem through a radical rewrite. If not, by all means replace the dispute template, and explain your reasons on the talk page. In the future please don't put my contribs name in your edit summary when I act in good faith and there is no talk on the discussion page; that is bad faith, and if you wanted to react like that you should have transfered the relevant Tejero discussion to 23-F, SqueakBox 00:59, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree it wasn't encyclopedic. Hope it is now? --SqueakBox 03:06, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, you. Back for good this time? LOL Deb 12:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered if that new pope would suck you back in. Deb 19:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to add a welcome back -- was a pleasant surprise to see your sig around the old place again! — Catherine\^talk 08:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Hey, if you want to do an RfC for Lulu, go right ahead. I will support you, since his editing has gone a bit too far, in my view. Zscout370 (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been editing much lately on these papal matters (got kind of burned out), but I too would definitely support your arguments. I think that some of his "styles" have bordered on vandalism. I'm not too sure how to go about doing a RfC, but I'm sure someone can figure out how. Regards, Bratsche^{talk random} 03:09, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Elections in Ireland, etc

Thanks for giving me the word on this discussion. Cannot believe that the people who previously voted knew so little about a subject they voted for!!! Hopefully this will attract some actual Irish people on the one hand, and help the first voters to learn a little along the way. Fergananim

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles

I choose not to play by those rules. The issue is not sufficiently important to warrant the time taken to learn that voting system. Incidentally, I voted in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles several days ago, and have edited many other pages since; you could have made it easier for me to tell what you were talking about by linking to the page.-gadfium 01:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I've changed my vote accordingly. Proteus (Talk) 12:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Ditto me. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

And me. Wow, stuff in the US is a bit easier. One vote, one person (at least for more local offices). I guess the Electoral College is kind of confusing, but not as much as the abovementioned vote. Thanks for the info. Bratsche^{talk random} 00:00, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yeh, it sounds fun actively bashing with you vote those who you desperately want to lose. Too bad I'm so ignorant of UK politics. I really don't know the difference between Sinn Fein and the Labour party, or how any of them correspond to American politics. Oh well, I still have time to learn. Thanks for your help. BTW, I like your new sig colors :). Bratsche^{talk random} 03:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

All I can say is I can't be bother. If people choose to use such complicated and almost stupid system, then it's their problem. I don't have time during my exams and all to worry about things like that. Democracy is an illusion anyway. -- KTC 11:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks for pointing out the voting system to me anyhow. -- KTC 11:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, if you need any help or protection against the "vote coralling" accusations, just ask. I'd be glad to protect your right to inform others, and my right to change my vote after understanding a unnecessarily complicated system. Thanks, Bratsche^{talk random} 03:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I posted something on the talk page. Someone should talk to them about no personal attacks. Bratsche^{talk random} 22:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Leifern

HI JT, regarding your block of User:Leifern, I unblocked him because he hadn't made any edits since my warning to him on his talk page. Hope this is okay with you. I don't like to block people for 3RR without warning them first. If he does it again, I'll block him myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

de Gaulle and the Commonwealth

See Talk:Commonwealth of Nations for a query on your edit about de Gaulle and the Commonwealth. If you have a good source, it would be nice to know it. --Macrakis 23:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Westminster System

Please look at what articles are in Category:Westminster System. Other than the Irish ones it contains articles relating to the Westminster system in general, not the specific national variants to it. Moreover not one of the articles you added even mentions the Westminster System, which is generally a requirement to be a category. Wikipedia:Categorization asks "is the category subject prominently mentioned in the article?" If the answer is no then the "category is probably inappropriate." - SimonP 23:58, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I created and populated that category and I can assure you the decision was deliberate. It previously was a list of the elements that can be considered a part of the Westminster System. Something that I, at least, found useful. What you seem to be interested in is a category of entities using the Westminster System, which is a different idea, but one that perhaps deserves its own category. - SimonP 00:10, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who listed the other one for deletion, but I suggested the pages be moved to a new category. What about moving those pages to Category:Irish entities based on the Westminster System? This would seem to satisfy both our interests. - SimonP 00:48, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

No. The whole point is that they link into an international system, and so must be linked to the international system, not a country-specific one. They should of course link to WS, as should Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. It isn't your category to define. But if you want to move your stuff to a tightly defined category, by ahead. But WS is an open category that anything related to the WS can and should be linked to. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 00:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I just feel that it is useful to keep a distinction between the elements of and the entities that use the WS. Might it not just be best to have Category:Politics of the Republic of Ireland, as well as the politics cats for other countries, as a subcategory of Category:Westminster System as the entire political infrastructure is based on the WS? - SimonP 00:48, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Also I feel you should watch you language more closely. When disagree with an edit you are much to fast to call it vandalism, nonsense, or idiotic. You have previously been cautioned for such behaviour and being aggressive will not help you get your way. - SimonP 00:32, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_17#Category:Irish_entities_based_on_the_Westminster_System
Djegan 21:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel Gibson, Traditionalist Catholic

Hey, could you take a look at the articles below? Apparently there's a minor Traditionalist Catholic war going on. I've tried to reconcile and NPOV things as best I can, but I'd also like opinions on what to do with the third article: it seems to be a noteworthy topic, but there is really very little information about it available, and I also think the title itself is POV. If more info can be unearthed, I would suggest a move. Otherwise, I was thinking VfD for non-notability.

• Mel Gibson
• Hutton Gibson
• Holy Family sect

Votes on Wikipedia

This is one of my complaints - those that know how to manipulate the system do it often and to push their POV in how things should be structured. I personally think the crazy voting system would work well to identify the option most likely to reach concensus in an up or down vote - which is what he started to do - and I would vote for it rather than not have formal addresses included at all. However, because he is forcing his view without full concensus I am probably going to change my vote. The problem is that the vote does not overturn existing practice unless it reaches concensus. The same thing happened with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints someone made a page move and then blocked a return page move and forced a vote to move it to The, even though over 60% voted in favor of the move - concensus was not "reached" so it had to stay where it was - this was one of my first expereinces on Wikipedia and it tainted my view of the processes. I won't break 3RR but I will be happy to revert a couple times a day. Trödel|talk 12:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree totally. It is a blatent abuse of the vote and the highjacking of the results. But somehow I am not surprised. I will do the same. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 21:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Did you know?

Lulu and/or Whig

I know it's a hassle, but would you be willing to support an RfC on Lulu and/or Whig? Please bear in mind that any such move is likely to lead to Lulu and Whig bringing an immediate RfC against anyone certifying such an RfC. However, these two users, since they have re-appeared, appear to have made few actual improvements to WP, but to have taken up lots and lots of people's time. We all have disagreements from time to time, but my patience with those who do not contribute usefully to WP (as is unfortunate the case with Whig and Lulu) is wearing thin. Kind regards, jguk 20:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a tricky topic, since I don't know what else we could bring against them other than WP:POINT. It's true that they've wasted a ton of time (all I've been doing lately is surrounding the style subject), but I don't think that's a necessary cause for a RfC. It just ticks me off that Whig is acting like the neutral king of policy, while in reality almost all of his edits are changing the styles and style-related pages. What he's doing now is totally ridiculous, like you said. Having a vote to ratify a vote that included a confusing voting method completely unknown to Wikipedia is just dumb. The original vote passed with a 53% majority; anyone will tell you that there's no consensus. Some of the ratification votes now are sort of worrisome: they act as ratificaiton is is the lesser of two evils, and that proposal three is the best choice. What they don't know, in my opinion, is that they're actually voting on consensus of 53%, and setting a precedent for 53% consensus in the future. Let's pray that it doesn't pass. Regards, Bratsche^{talk random} 21:43, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

It would be pretty fun to have a contrived RfC against me whose argument was WP:Point, which is not even WP policy. Looking at the current vote, I think it will probably be demoted from "semi-policy" to "non-policy." As the only one here who hasn't abused the VfD process, I pretty well smell like roses.

There's a good joke: Doc says "you have two weeks to live"; patient say "I want a 2nd opinion!"; Doc says "You're ugly too."... maybe you can put in an RfC against me on the grounds I'm ugly too. We can argue whether I meet the appearance requirements for WP.

Actually there are some even better jokes I can tell, but I'm afraid the discussants lack the academic background for the Anna Freud and Hegel jokes. Sorry. - The Dishonorable Dr. Lulu...

revert

I don't know what happened - I didn't mean to revert that. --Erauch 03:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

RfCs on Whig/Lulu

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and add your comments and, if you feel able to, please endorse them too. Kind regards, jguk 19:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Styles Vote on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI

I have no idea on how the vote is going to go, but I hope this can give us a clear bench mark on what we use for the article. Are we going to reach the 80% percent consensus some people claim around here, no. However, we will be close, a hell of a lot closer than Whig's survey. From the math I did today, there was 19 Support and 6 Against. That makes 25. Take 19, divide it by 25, and you get .76 percent. Whig's survey only had around 53ish. I personally think more people are participating in our survey too. However, I want to ask you if what I am doing is right, and if you wish, comment about the way the votes are being collected. Also, do you think it is right of me for staying out of the survey. The reason why is that if I vote one way, I will get many people just to vote the opposite, since they might see me POV-pushing one way or another. If there is anything else I should do, just let me know. Also, if you want to take my survey method to other contested pages, lets do that. However, my personal feeling is go to these two pages: Queen Elizabeth II and Kim Jong-il. Since Whig used those leaders in his examples for his vote, lets use those pages as the test dummies in my vote. We can compare notes and see what is going on with the use of styles, period. I do not think a blanket policy will work on everyone, since some people earned their titles by office, others by a cult following. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Category rules

If you dislike Category:Irish entities based on the Westminster System please nominate it on cfd, it is improper procedure to simply empty a disputed category. - SimonP 15:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I waited several days for your comment on the proposla and took your silence as assent. If you disagree with the category then please list it on CfD. Stop simply emptying the category unilaterally. Note that CfD states "please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision." - SimonP 20:36, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Australian Head of State

The Australian Constitution gives the Governor-General many important prerogative powers in his own right. The extent of his representation of the monarch is limited, see here. Pete 00:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The Australian Governor-General is a nominal chief executive, in that he is advised by the Prime Minister in almost everything he does. Nobody is disputing this. However, you can't say that he is merely the Queen's representative, because this simply is not true. The role of the Governor-General has increased over the years as that of the Queen has declined. Pete 01:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You say The Queen, as lawyers as distinquished as George Winterton have made abundantly clear, is head of state As a matter of fact, Professor Winterton holds the "two heads of state" position(here), but perhaps you have a recent source that shows he has changed his mind...? Pete 02:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a checkable source that shows he has changed his mind and now holds the "Queen as sole head of state" view? Pete 02:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Not again, surely, Skyring? Don't you get bored?  ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:11, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nice to be back home and have the Internet on tap all day every day. And it's a lot of fun to watch people dance around when I ask them for a source and they don't have one. Pete 03:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I thought I would give you an opportunity to reconsider your certification of the RfC in regards to my account. I have posted a response and while I do think this erroneous account was in extremely bad taste, I can understand that you may have subscribed your certification in the heat of some passion and did not stop to consider the statement carefully. I think there are substantial defects in regards to both the statement itself and your certification and I do not think that either of us need to keep this albatross around. If you want to proceed in spite of my response and my request here, I think it would demonstrate bad faith on your part, and I would prefer that our disagreements were more friendly. Thank you for your consideration. Whig 11:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Jtdirl, I would just like to convey to you my sincere gratitude for your efforts countering Skyring’s obfuscation at the Government of Australia article. Although I would hate to be unkind, I just feel so utterly deflated after reading through what would have to the greatest display of idiocy (or just plain thick-headedness) I’ve ever come across at Wikipedia. Hopefully, he’ll realise his foolishness and return whencesoever he came. Thanks again, Cyberjunkie 16:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Ratificaiton on honorifics

I put together what I hope is a neutrally presented view - would appreciate if you copyedit it to make it more neutral where possible. I hope that pointing out the issues will help avoid them in the future. However, I am frustrated with the changed presentation of the vote from the Survey to the Ratification and doubt I have been as neutral as I should be. Can you take a look? Trödel|talk 23:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

How to sign reverts?

As a user of the syntax, can you tell me how to generate the 'rv edits by [x] to prev ver by y' edit summary, in a quick way. Or do you do it the tedious way of going back to the edit history and noting both user-names and typing them in and typing in the link syntax for the first one. It seems too common a format to be just typed by everyone, but I don't find any notes on it in Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version

Insulting and Provocative Behaviour

Just a quick note. Could I ask you to please tone down your behaviour? It's hardly professional and it's a poor example. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but let's have light rather than heat, OK? Pete 01:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look at your supposed rebuttal. Could you provide edit links, as requested, so that the accuracy of these statements may be checked, please? You've made it pretty complicated, and it's liable to get more so as I respond to you, so it you make it clear who said what right from the start, that's going to be a big help. I must thank you for providing a response at all - I thought you might wimp out. Pete 03:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Ian Paisley UUP?

Hi! I read (with some amusement) the jokes on your user page. However, am I missing the point of the joke when I say that Ian Paisley is DUP? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 12:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

triregno.jpg

Hello,

I just noticed you asked me on 7 May why I have removed this image from commons. I asked on the discussion page why this image is thought to be PD, but I don't have removed it: I would not be able to do it as I am not an administrator on commons. Somebody else has removed it, not me.

[2] you can see who has deleted it and here the reason [3].

Sorry you have thought it was me.

Btw, are you sure fair use images are accepted on commons? I always thought they weren't. Jyp 14:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This image was requested for deletion on April 28 on Commons:Deletion requests by User:Ausir. The uploader was notified the same day, see User talk:Danielm. Uploader claimed the image was public domain and had added a URL, [4], The web link did not contain any license information.

After 10 days the image was deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/Archives03.

All deletions are based on the Commons:Deletion guidelines. WikiCommons do not allow "fair use" images, press photos or photos with questionable licenses. WikiCommons works independently of other Wikimedia projects and it is neither required or possible to check the 199 different Wikipedias if they use a particular image.

Regards, Thuresson, May 23, 23:56 CET

Lulu

I already did. :) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Congrats

Well, looks like both of our articles Papal Tiara and Hero of Belarus became Featured last night. If I was in Ireland, I would be getting a drink or two right now to celebrate. Sadly, I have to stick with Pepsi. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote on policy positions at Government of Australia

I note that Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Wikipedia:Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate.

My proposed policy position is this:

• That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:

1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy

2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia

3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.

• That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
• Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed. Adam 23:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to override your previous edit, but I am sick of this silliness and I want to get it resolved. I hope you agree. Adam 04:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that a better course of action would be to take Skyring to the ArbCom, the issue with Skyring has been going on for months. I have made a page in my User:Petaholmes/RfA/Skyring/userspace to prepare the case. Please fell free to add your comments. --nixie 05:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Camilla

You're right, I hadn't noticed the other silly change. Kind regards, jguk 19:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Conas atá tú?

How'r ya? The Irish Wikipedia ga is in need of contributers and articles. You clearly have plenty of info about all things Ireland and other, would you be interested in contributing to it? We've got 778 articles at the moment and we're pushing for 1,000 but it's a slow course when so few people contribute. Even if you don't have great Irish, people with better Irish can clean it up for you. If you need a dictionary, there's a good one at www.englishirishdictionary.com Bí ann! - Dalta 21:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure

And once again, well done! A more detailed response to your engaging comment is here. Thank you for it, I enjoyed reading it very much. Yours, El_C 03:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

RfAr

Please note that a Request for Arbitration [5] has been opened regarding the prefixed style NPOV dispute, the RfC which was opened with respect to my account, and personal attacks made and restored by certain parties. I have named you as an involved party and therefore I am notifying you of this RfAr in order that you may respond accordingly. Whig 12:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you aware that Lulu deleted part of your statement because he disagreed with it [6]? Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

You might wanna look at this

At the Economic History of the southern Irish state, they want to change the name to E.H. of the Republic of Ireland, making it factually wrong, similar to the History of the Republic of Ireland page. - Dalta 16:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Stop blocking widely used IPs for long periods of time

You've blocked User:131.111.8.96 for 60 hours. Please don't do this. Some guy sent out an email to about 100 administrators yesterday because you did this. If you need to block to stop vandalism, block it for at most an hour or two. CryptoDerk 17:04, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

It's only one IP, so block it for an hour or so, then go on. Keep in mind that since it's such a highly watched page, other administrators will be on the vandalism very quick. CryptoDerk 17:35, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I feel I am being harassed

Hi again, Jtdirl. I feel I am unfairly harassed. [7] (and [8]) Please see this and comment if you wish. Thanks. El_C 22:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks on Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

I have to think that given your amount of education and apparently responsible occupation, there is some kernel of maturity within you. I am imploring you here to leave off on the ongoing personal attacks on me. And even leave off on the ongoing gaming of WP admin mechanisms to harass folks you disagree with.

1. Yes, I'm utterly mystified at how you can continue to be so dead-wrong on the styles issue.
2. Yes, I'm not going to be happy at the vindidictive and spurious use of RfCs, VfDs, RfArs and whatnot you've engaged in.
3. No, I don't expect or hope to become buddy-buddy with you.

But despite that, will you please, please, please just stop engaging in so g-d many personal attacks against me, even on pages I would not otherwise have any involvement in? Please?! I don't want you to like me, I don't care if you respect me, I just wish you would stop the ad hominem attacks.

And yes, I also know how to engage in sophistry and pedantry, pretending not to say what you are actually saying, and all that nonsense. I don't do so because I choose not to. Frankly, a Ph.D. in history doesn't even light a candle to one in philosophy in terms of acquired sophistical skills. But I also know how to read what's actually going on with such ever-so-coy attacks. It is not amusing, it's merely vindictive and petty.

And no, I am not going to write any RfCs or RfArs, or whatever the administrative acronym du jour is to respond to your behavior. Please don't take that as carte blanche to litter WP with nasty quips about me. Take it as an invitation to exhibit some maturity, and simply refrain from the disruptive behavior.

Please! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:33, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Your comments, please!

I'd like you to comment on this page out of the Australian Commonwealth Government Directory for March 1997. This is the Commonwealth Government, in its own directory, saying that the Governor-General is the Head of State, without qualification. I am not saying that I support the opinion, merely demonstrating that there are different opinions.Pete 06:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Blocked?

Why are you blocking me? I know the number (207.200.116.132) AOL gives me frequently is sometimes used by a vandal(s), but I assure you I am a responsible user. Please release the block. WBardwin 17:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I thought. I can write to you and edit on Bubonic plague but not on my user pages?? This mistaken blocking has happened before, but not like this. Please take a look and release the block. WBardwin 17:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sure, this time! WBardwin 17:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think your Irish Vandal might be back using 71.112.231.198. See High King of Ireland. Placed a snippy note on "Black Plague" as well. Good luck! WBardwin 20:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA Skyring

I've put up a page os evidence realting mostly to edits in the main namspace of Government of Australia, if you have anything to add or know about similar behaviour by him on another page please add it. --nixie 02:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Darth Benedict

It's a talk page. And I never said it was true, moron. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:59, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Signature

Hi! Would you be prepared to tell me your secret recipe for formating it? I would add a Slovenian flag, as I have been scolded for using bad English and am not prepared to explain on every page at length that I am not an American. Your autograph also has nice fonts and colors. Of course I would not copy you, just would like to learn in general how to format my signature. The instructions on meta are not very usable. Many thanks! --Eleassar777 15:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lenihan....

Ever thought about adding 'bringing down political dynasties' to the vices list on your user page :p --Kiand 14:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) (another Duffy, althought not nessacerily related)

Nine Famous Irishmen

Hi, I stumbled upon Nine Famous Irishmen. I went to VfD as the title is hopless and the style anecdotal. But it may need moving and clean-up rather than deletion. I felt it badly needed an Irish expert to take a look. --Doc (?) 23:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the Irish version of those chain mails about the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Among other things, Australia didn't exist until 1901, so it's hard to see how it could have had a prime minister 27 years before that. john k 00:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Charles Gavan Duffy was Premier of Victoria, not Prime Minister of Australia. And he was not transported. Adam 01:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Papal Tiara

Hey, it is on the front page as Today's FA. Congrats. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep, it looks real nice. Great job! Bratsche^{talk random} 17:43, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Papal tiara

That may be a good idea. I believe that the papal tiara article is on the front page, is it not? It should be protected anyway in that case. However, this particular vandal was probably targeting the article just to be annoying, as he vandalized quite a few other articles as well. --Chanting Fox 19:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RE: again

I completely agree. I find SimonP a very aggressive editor, constantly deleting and reverting other people's work as he sees fit, even when he is in the minority. As you may or may not know, he removed all the Commonwealth and Commonwealth Realm templates from the country pages, despite many objections from different people, including yourself. There is a clear view by many that templates such as the Crown template, and the Commonwealth templates are a good navigation tool for related articles, and attempts at removing them should be resisted. Astrotrain 21:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Seiges of Galway

Hi! Just wondering if you would be interested in contributing something to this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seiges_of_Galway - which is still in progress, or spreading the word on it to any you think might like to see it. The eras of Irish history I am working on don't seem to have too many contributers, and I would very much welcome any input. Cheers. Fergananim 5th June 2005.

TfD

Thanks for the heads-up. I couldn't think of anything to add to what you said, but I voted to keep. We don't want this to become like the German wikipedia. Mackensen (talk) 22:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I've had a look at the template, and I must say - it does seem somewhat big. For most of the articles on crowns it takes up at least half the article space on screen. I also question whether a reader of some of the articles listed might be interested in some of the other articles listed in the template. That said, I do think this is more a question of moderating the size of the template rather than outright deletion. Kind regards, jguk 22:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Constitutional monarchy

Hello, Jtdirl. Might I request your comments on Talk:British monarchy? User:Stevenzenith seems to insist that the Queen is not a constitutional monarch, but exercises actual power. -- Emsworth 19:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Crown Template

Thank you for the heads-up on the template; I have voiced my opinions on TfD. Personally, I think templates are the way to go. I hate lists in most cases; they are unwieldy and I don't like to dig though a whole mess of info in order to find the link that I need. I think in the future, I will be keeping an active eye on both TfD and CfD, so we can stop this phasing out of good templates from happening. Regards, Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:46, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Irish articles

Much as I would like another opportunity to smite the egregious Skyring, I think I will keep out of Irish politics, a subject I don't claim to know much about (apart from elections). The last time I looked at History of Ireland I thought it was so awful I was tempted to attempt a rewrite, but fortunately prudence prevailed. I appreciate your efforts to have Skyring put down, however. By the way, how do you come to know so much about Australian constitutional matters? Do you have an antipodean connection, as does much of Hibernia? Adam 23:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Crowns and the others in the series

This is an excellent series of templates, keep it up! :) Four minor quibbles, that may or may not be deliberate decisions on your part: (1) There is no link that I can see to the main article on crowns. I think that would be good. (2) there are currently hanging "|"s after Papal Tiara and Crown of Charles, Prince of Wales - I think it would look better if these were scrapped (I thought they were only necessary between entries). I would be bold and do it myself, but since you clearly know what you're doing, I wondered if it was deliberate. (3) There's no "edit" button for the template. The {{ed}} template makes it much easier for users to edit templates, and I think that's probably a good thing (after all, it's deliberately been made easy enough to edit a page, so why not templates too?) (4) The template links into template space at the bottom. This makes a degree of sense, but is also a tad ugly? I am guessing that all the templates in your series have main articles associated with them (if not I guess it would be easy enough to make a stub). I think it would be "nicer" to link to that article instead, and the template will presumably be found at the bottom of the page in a TOC-type role for that subject. I do understand why you might like the "clean" presentation of a template displayed in template-space! But it does seem weird to navigate readers into template space... usually I think of that as a bit "back-end", unlike article space for reading and category space for browsing. Here is a radical compromise suggestion: as you have rightly pointed out elsewhere, "list" articles are generally pretty awful. They do exist, however, and lie in the main article space. What would be wrong with an article entitled, e.g. "Crowns topics" which consisted entirely of your crowns template (with possibly a very brief introduction to crowns in general)? It would have the advantage of the "clean" presentation of your template displayed in template space, but also it would be displayed in the main article space (which seems navigationally preferable) and, should you want to, it could be categorized into the appropriate category too. The big disadvantage is that it is being displayed "further from source" which makes editing a bit harder... but that could be largely allayed by adding an edit button to the template itself! Anyhow, I reiterate, they are 4 minor quibbles, and your templates are a pleasure to navigate by, as well a catalyst for article-creation, so thanks a lot :) --131.111.8.101 21:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

News presenter

Hi. I'd appreciate it if you could please respond to the discussion at Talk:News anchor – I'm looking at going ahead with the merge/rearranging as it's been a week without any further comeback. violet/riga (t) 10:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Skyring RfA Evidence

Could you please respond to my comments about a falsehood in your evidence in this matter. The way you evade notification of errors in your material lends no confidence that your credibility. Pete 10:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Griffith

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that i uploaded Arthur Griffith image to commons here. --DiamondDave 21:31, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Poor quality work

I've been looking at some of the articles you've been recently working on, and if I were you I wouldn't be quite so keen to dish out bucket loads of criticism. The fact is that your work is pretty bloody awful. It is riddled with spelling errors, the syntax and grammar are woeful, and you make a whole bunch of mistakes in fact and logic. You really need to check your work or have someone check it for you before putting out for people to use as a reference. It's just not good enough. I've now seen enough of your work to be confident of two things: 1. Any article that you created and hasn't been worked on by others is going to be of low standard, and 2. You won't admit what is obvious to all.

Look at [9]. This is an article created by you earlier today in which, among other things, you:

1. created the fictional office of the British President - "...the Irish presidential inauguration, as is also the case with the inauguration of the President of the United Kingdom, is the legal entrypoint into office for a president." 2. declared that the presidential term was of negative length - "The Irish Constitution makes it clear that a president's term of office expires on the day before the inauguration of their precedessor." 3. created interregnum activities for the Presidential Commission - "no Presidential Commission has never been called on to do anything in that period." 4. turned the military unit of the Blue Hussars into a circus band - "The Hussars instead became a motorcycle troupe..." 5. committed many spelling errors - "tha President of Ireland would inaugurated in state", "diplomatic corp", "They then preceed to the dias...", "Techically for that period". 6. indulged in gibberish and convoluted sentences - "The Governor-General of the Irish Free State, the representative of the King of Ireland, had been installed into office in a low-key ceremony, sometimes in Leinster House (the seat of Oireachtas Éireann), sometimes, as in the case of the last Governor-General, Domhnall Ua Buachalla, in the drawing room of his brother."

I've had to go through and clean all this up, and that's from an article nobody but you had worked upon. On checking other articles of a similar nature I find them all of very poor quality with many details incorrect, and yet you claim that you are an expert in this field. Your heart is in the right place, but your work is simply not reliable.

Please give some thought to having your work checked by a competent editor before you put it up on Wikipedia. Pete 11:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)