User talk:Irate~enwiki

Nice input on Liverpool. You don't appear to be that confused :) Martin TB 16:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Small Unconfused Islands are in the sea of confusion. --Jirate 19:00, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

Clitwars

The way you and 198 keep reverting so fast, it could give the impression that it's only you against him. If you would wait an hour or two before reverting, I'm sure you'd find others only two willing to do so (me for a start!) It's just that you're so damn fast. --Minority Report 00:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That what my last SO said.--Jirate 00:53, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

UK Wikipedians

I don't know if you are aware of the UK Wikipedians group, but I thought I'd draw your attention to them. Angela has just put up a notice that Jimbo will be coming to London in late Vovember, and is suggesting a possible meet. Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board Thought you might be interested. -- Martin TB 11:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yup I'd be interested. Knowing a date ASAP would be good for the price of the rail ticket.--Jirate 14:57, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Looks like December 3 has been suggested. Keep your eye on it and comment here --Martin TB 15:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your comment: "Remove bipolar symptom"

Do you mind? I think this was most likely trolling, not the result of mental illness. Particularly when you look at the link inserted, which is http://www.natcenscied.org/, that of a pro-evolution website. Let's not pander to stereotypes. -- The Anome 22:37, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yup ok noted.--Jirate 02:11, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Redirects for Deletion

First let me say I love your user name and your user page. LOL!  :-) I removed the speedy delete tag from Launch as it doesn't qualify as a Candidate for Speedy Deletion. If you think the redirect is inappropriate and should simply be deleted, you can list it at Redirects for Deletion. Happy editing, and thanks for making me smile. SWAdair | Talk 08:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ta. I've converted it to a

, which seems the most sensible.--Jirate 14:14, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Please justify the use of the pub-stub

Category:Buildings and structures stubs and Template:Struct-stub already qualify any articles you have placed in the public houses stub. As you have only listed 5, I do not see any further use of the template or the category. As a result, I have listed them up for deletion. See: CFD - Pub stub and TFD --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 10:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, if your around could you justify this? I want to see whether to remove it or not. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've added a justification. How anyone could doubt the importance of the public house is beyond me.--Jirate 14:13, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

I'd agree. But I'm biased because I come from Australia. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Anthony is right, you have broken the 3RR. The guidelines say that both sides in a dispute should be blocked if both break this rule. Please note that a content dispute is not "simple vandalism". Regards -- sannse (talk) 14:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is in my book when it takes the form it has.--Jirate 14:36, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:How to spot vandalism#Simple vandalism and Wikipedia:Vandalism. Unless it is simple vandalism the 3RR applies. And I am prepared to block both sides if necessary. -- sannse (talk) 14:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't need a lesson in how to spot vandalism, though I think possible you do. You have already said you prepared to block it doesn't need repeating, unless it makes you feel big. Now get lost.--Jirate 15:04, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Stop the revert war already!

Well, it's locked now. Happy? Stop it! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I agree with your changes, not Anthony's. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's over 12hrs ago that now, since then I've been block, reanabled and 42 wiki years have passed.--Jirate 04:16, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Clitoris

Please stop reverting this, or I will block you per the 3RR and the principle of treating all parties equally. In spite of your comments, this is not simple Vandalism (see "What vandalism is not—Bullying or stubbornness"). Cool Hand Luke 17:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are being reported for abousing sysop powers.--Jirate 18:30, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

I've removed you rfc against cool hand luke. Please note that our dispute resolution process demands that you try to sort out problems before trying the more exteme steps such as rfc.You are of course free to add it back in, I will not revert you if you do so, but bear in mind that such as request is unlikely to be certified. I suggest that you talk to CHL instead. Something along the lines of "Hey I had no intention of breaking the 3RR so your warning is completely unnecessary" should do the trick. Remeber that CHL is trying to prevent an edit warnot trying to upset you. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to talk to him.--Jirate 20:18, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Very sorry. I miscounted Anthony's reverts when I blocked him. He was also blocked (and is) for violating his standing order. Do be advised that this is not simple vandalism, and breaking the rule should get you blocked. Cool Hand Luke 02:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah ok just in Vbad mood.--Jirate 03:01, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

No problem. I think when many different people revert the page it looks better anyway. Like Theresa said to Anthony last time, "Four different editors have reverted you. This is a war you can't win." There's no need to do it yourself every time—a lot of people agree. Cool Hand Luke 19:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Assorted Liverpool docks

Since your name's on one of them, so I'll tell you - the various Mersey dock stubs (Canning/Wapping/Canning Half Tide) appear to be borked - contents not matching titles. I've no idea if this interests you more than it does me, but since you created at least one of 'em, I'm guessing it does. Icundell 20:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep sorry about the block copy errors. My head was spinning by that time.--Jirate 20:50, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

Talk:Clitoris

Please stop insulting people. This does have the appearance of trolling, and these comments won't win you any sympathy. Cool Hand Luke 07:37, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)