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)

clitoris talk page

"The level of my lanaguge is I feel appropriate" The level of your language is not appropriate and you need to tone it down. The purpose of talk pages is for discussion. The purpose of discussion is to try and persuade people. You will not persuade anyone by insulting them. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The people you are talking with are not amenable to persuasion.--Jirate 13:24, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

CHL seems perfectly reasonable. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He may do to you.--Jirate 12:24, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Please consider wikiquette. You get more done by being friendly to people than by insulting them. Even if you feel they're not going to be swayed even if you are friendly to them, you gain nothing by being rude. --fvw* 13:33, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

I gain a sense of having done everything possible rather than just a subset of what is possible.--Jirate 13:37, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

Being rude plays into the hands of your opponents. People have already commented on how abusive the hardliners are. They are lumping the likes of me in with the likes of you. You are hindering my ability to argue and gain a solution. Plus being rude is against Wikipedia policy. Stop it. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who are these people and where did they make these comments. As I have said several times I regard them as rude, in the extreme, and dishonest. I will act inline with my views not yours.--Jirate 12:23, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

as a completely uninvolved party, allow me to comment that by being rude, you will almost certainly acheive less than would in fact have been possible. dab (ᛏ) 14:32, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. --Viriditas | Talk 22:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem.--Jirate 22:31, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

'm'

why do you mark all of your edits as 'minor', when they are, in fact, not minor at all? You should give a short summary of what you did. E.g., I have reverted your redirect on Queen Elizabeth to the full disambiguation article. dab (ᛏ) 14:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With the QE page it had already been screwed 02:07, 2005 Jan 6 I didn't realise and though it was just a messed up redirect, and fixed it as such. As for the minor, most of them are and I set the default to minor rather than major.--Jirate 14:35, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Cookiecaper RFC

I've removed your RFC on Cookiecaper from WP:RFC, as it lacks any of the proper information. See the "example user" template in WP:RFC to understand what you need. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Id forgotten about it. I was over reacting anyway.--Jirate 18:15, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

'Tis cool. I'm thinking we should put advice on the RfC page, similar to Lewis Carroll's suggestions for letter writers: if you're angry, go to sleep and write the letter in the morning, if you still want to. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Stop calling me a vandal, dude. You are part of a majority that is throwing its weight around. That doesn't actually make you right.Dr Zen 00:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No other things make me right. --Jirate 00:49, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

For once, I have to agree with Dr. Zen - disagreeing with someone does not make them a vandal. You have a history of calling people you disagree with vandals. →Raul654 19:01, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

He is a vandal end of story.--Jirate 15:09, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Isaac Roberts

I've taken it upon myself to expand Isaac Roberts. If you have a few minutes, I'd appreciate it if you could look over it and give me some input. I noticed that there was conflicting information on some of the sites, and I tried to sort that out, but I may have missed some, thereby causing some chronology errors. Thank you! -Frazzydee|✍ 15:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems good to me, I'll have a look for some dates around here. The only thing I would say is that the article doesn't spell out that Roberts work underpins all optical astronomy until the development of Active optics. Long integrations plus trackling. So it may be worth mentionining the Hubble Deep Field and the faint Malin galaxies. --Jirate 17:46, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Irish stubs

Hi Irate - just a short note to say that stub articles about places in Northern Ireland can use Ireland-geo-stub or UK-geo-stub, rather than just lumping them in with the unsorted geo-stubs. Thanks for improving the articles and putting the stub messages on, but using the more specific stub messages would help even more! Cheers, Grutness|^hello? 05:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Caps

Thanks for your input on the Pump RE caps. Between your links, and other things I've seen, it seems that this might be a case where un-specified usage (eg 'first cap') is usually referring to a 'national' cap, while narrower usages are usually self-identified, ie 'first county cap', 'first school cap', etc.? Niteowlneils 18:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems right to me, the unqualified is usually the international. It seems to date to 1880 for football [1] and be of cricket origin. Also [2].--Jirate 00:02, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Probem editor Samboy

Hi there. Just thought I'd get in touch regarding the above problem editor, who I notice seems to have recently targeted you for harrassment [3]. I was made a target of harrassment, stalking and abuse by this editor late last year, and the matter even escalated to arbitration before being resolved in my favour. During an absence from Wikipedia of several months I have been contacted privately by several editors who claim to have been abused by Samboy under similar circumstances to myself, so I'm currently exploring whether it may be worth iniating a formal disciplinary process to address Samboy's history of inappropriate behaviour. Would you be willing to support such a process? --Gene_poole 05:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bizarreness effect

I don't think this article is a speedy delete - which rules does it fit under? Perhaps you should list it on vfd instead. Thue | talk 20:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Someone seems to have zapped it. Though I though obvious nonsense was a good reason.--Jirate 20:46, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Cathedral names

The usual policy to use common names for page titles: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). -- Curps 21:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is policy to use the offical name not the names crtins like you want to use. If you revert my mods I will report you under 3rr.--Jirate 21:30, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

No, the official policy is to use common names, not official names. See link above. We don't have an article titled "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". And no personal attacks, please. -- Curps 21:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I regard your vandalising aof my mods as a personal attack. Who is this 'we' then. Wikipedia may or may not have article. I will correct the UK problem as soon as possible.--Jirate 21:41, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

I have posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You may wish to post there as well. -- Curps 21:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jiunkrn Ireland???? Stop what you are doing or you will be blocked, and an RfC will be filed against you. This is your last warning. -- Curps 21:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for what. I haven't broken any rules. It's you he needs to be banned.--Jirate 21:54, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

Although it could be argued that your previous page moves were part of a naming dispute, that last move of United Kingdomedited United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Jiunkrn Ireland [4] is clearcut page-move vandalism with no possible justification. -- Curps 21:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your mad.--Jirate 21:59, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

You have a history of personal attacks ("cretins" above, and I seem to remember you referring to Violetriga as "Vile Riga"). Remember that Wikipedia:No personal attacks is also official policy. -- Curps 22:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your mad and there is an RfC set up against you now. So any more comments by you should be dirrect there. Any here will be deleted.--Jirate 22:04, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

Re: your message on my talk page. I am not threatening to use admin powers over the dispute over the cathedral page article titles. I am threatening to use admin powers if you do clearcut pagemove vandalism like renaming United Kingdomedited United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Jiunkrn Ireland, as you did. [5] -- Curps 22:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the information of anyone else who has followed a link here, User:Irate's RfC is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Curps. -- Curps 22:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) User:Irate later requested the RfC to be deleted, and Silsor did so.

I was under the mistaken impression that you had renamed the United Kingdom article itself to Jiunkrn Ireland, whereas you actually renamed the little-used redirect United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the new title. This was still page-move vandalism, but not as serious as I thought at the time. I have corrected the record above. -- Curps 03:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Liverpool Cathedral

Its official website uses "Liverpool Cathedral". Seems to me that the cathedral's proprietors ought to have the final word on what it's called. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 00:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually no as the owners are actually ether the diocise or the CofE. Not the web designer.--Jirate 01:11, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

Yes, the Church owns the cathedral, but since this is an official website, it's quite clear that the cathedral's authorities dictate its content, and not the web designer. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 01:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, a Google search for "Liverpool Cathedral" returns 15,300 hits, whereas "Cathedral Church of Christ in Liverpool" returns 59. Based on these two points, I'm going to move the article back again. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 00:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Liverpool Anglican cathedral 4590. How many of yours are actual refernces to the Catholic cathderal.--Jirate 01:11, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

I'm not about to sift through them all, but 4590 is still a great deal more than 59. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 01:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point is there are many names, to many groups.--Jirate 01:28, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

I did an actual search at a Liverpool newspaper website, from which it seems that "Liverpool Cathedral" is used to refer to the Anglican cathedral, and "Metropolitan Cathedral" is used to refer to the Roman Catholic cathedral. Only if the two are mentioned in the same sentence and it's desired to strongly distinguish the two, then Liverpool Cathedral is referred to as "the Anglican cathedral". See the talk pages for the page-move votes. If you can supply the website of any other local Liverpool newspapers that use different common names, please feel free to do so. -- Curps 03:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi, please fill in edit summaries with a description of your change. Wikipedia:Edit summary says:

Always fill the summary field.

(Emphasis in the original.) While I'm at it, I see you flagged your changes to WP:AN/I as minor edits. Use of this flag for those edits was highly inappropriate. Help:Minor edit gives guidelines on when it's appropriate to use that flag; please follow them. And before you say that in your opinion, your changes were minor, please note that that page says:

consider the opinions of other editors when choosing this option

so whether you think they are minor is less important than what other editors think. Noel (talk) 03:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

New Testament - NPOV check

Irate, the New Testament has undergone some modifications, and your point is disputed on Talk:New Testament. The modifications, how minor they might appear, might solve your problem with its POV-ness. Could you please check the article and report any passages or terms in the article you still believe to be non-neutral. The POV-template might be removed rather soon. Gebruiker:Dedalus 20:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ignorance

Ignorance is trying to block out the opinions of all who disagree with you. The term more adequately describes your actions. Juppiter 17:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No it perfectly describes you. So far up your own arse you can't see the real world.--Jirate 18:58, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Irate, is it really necessary to engage in this petty squabbling and personal attack? Wikipedia:Wikilove might teach you a lesson that would serve you well. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 19:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Plenty of things would serve me well, not having to put up with idiots would be one, the other would be not having to put up with parternalistic morons like yourself.--Jirate 19:42, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. Thanks — Matt Crypto 19:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then stop making them--Jirate 19:54, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

So what is it about Wikipedia:No personal attacks that you find so hard to understand? I object to being called a moron, and I have no time for people who engage in petty disputes for their own sake at the expense of others' enjoyment from the encyclopedia. May I suggest you tone your contributions and attitude down, unless you want dispute resolution proceedings to start against you. (NB that is not a threat, nor something that I plan to do, solely an obvious consequence of your current behaviour.) I'd rather be paternalistic than petty and aggressive. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 19:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to start a complaint do it, don't threaten me with it, which the NB doesn't disguise. I think you'll find you are aggressive, you just don't think of yourself as that, but you seem fairly happy to go around throwing your weight around, as your doing here. Parternalism is a form of aggression it's a menchanism for asserting yourself dishonestly.--Jirate 21:14, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Asking someone to stop making personal attacks is not a personal attack; it's a request. Calling someone "shit for brains", as you just did on my talk page, is certainly a personal attack. There is a big difference. Why do you feel it necessary to be so rude and abusive? — Matt Crypto 21:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Making false claims of a personal attack is a personal attack. Why do you feel it neccassary to be condesending and patronising?--Jirate 22:02, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

You called a user a "paternalistic moron"; are you arguing that that is not a personal attack? I felt it necessary to ask you to behave with civility and politeness, in line with Wikipedia policy. If you feel this is condescending and patronising, then OK. However, you must not make personal attacks, period. — Matt Crypto 22:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't you I used that term with now was it and as such I don't think it's up to you to get involved.--Jirate 22:17, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

That policy doesn't apply to Irate, haven't you realised that yet? There's small print on the page that explicitly names him as being given free reign. violet/riga (t) 22:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh look it's Vile trigger. Someone who thinks if they block someone under a rule, despite them not have broken the rule, there is no need to appologise.--Jirate 22:17, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)