User talk:TheOldJacobite

Do it yourself

I'm not sure why you reverted the changes I made to Do it yourself, but please stop and take the time to look at the links that I've changed before reverting again. Some do not belong, and your earlier culling removed a few that did (for example links to DIY culture amd DIY ethic in the "see also" section). If you feel strongly about the changes, please discuss it on the talk page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One small question

I don't mean to employ your talk page as a forum for technical questions, but since you left the welcome on my user page... Anyhow, whenever I add a person to a category, they always get listed on the category page in alphabetical order of their first name, rather than their last. Is there any way I can solve this? Thanks, Lithoderm (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

The statement was in regards to the SPA nominator Red Hugh, who is a sockpuppet of a 'retired' user that I just don't care to name. The AFD was closed, and the SPA has slung no less than three personal attacks without consequence. SashaNein (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KENNETH REXROTH

I think you sent me a warning by mistake. I'm the fellow who added the "On The Road" comment (Reinhold Cacoethes) in the "Beat Generation" section of the "Kenneth Rexroth" article. For a while there, I was a bit confused, and thought you to be one of those crack-pots and half-wits that watch over a Wiki-entry as their own personal fiefdom and who add and subtract factual information when it does not jibe with their own fawning tendencies and/or distorted world-views. I now believe you were trying to contact another editor. Since you are on "holiday"...I will forthwith accept your apology and just consider the matter dropped. Garagehero (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why I restored the "Las Vegas" comment

I think it raises a very relevant point, namely what defines vaudeville? Vaudeville-like entertainment has never vanished entirely, and I think there's a case to be made that live entertainment in general, and shows featuring a series of short, separate performances in particularly, are experiencing a bit of a revival. Are Las Vegas shows in fact vaudeville without the name, or, if not, why not? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signs

Hi, why did you say that Signs was not about an alien invasion and delete it from List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction? Are there any statements by Shyamalan or others involved with the movie's making to suggest something other than this straightforward interpretation, which is assumed by the Signs wikipedia article? If not I think it should probably stay, there are plenty of reviews which refer to them as aliens and which would qualify as reliable sources. Hypnosifl (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I will defer to your opinion on the matter. My main point is that, unlike "War Of The Worlds" or "Independence Day," "Signs" does not show an alien invasion. At most, there are mysterious indications, and then---perhaps---one alien. It simply does not seem the same. But, do what you like. Cheers!"

Thanks. On the point about numbers, I'd just note that although we only saw a few of the creatures in the movie, the characters did see television reports that they were appearing all over the world and attacking humans, and towards the end of the movie it was reported that "the battle turned around in the Middle East" when "three small cities there found a primitive method to defeat them" (i.e. found the creatures were allergic to water--getting the quotes from here). So, this does sound like the world was facing a full-scale invasion. Hypnosifl (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Do not vandalise the Old English (Ireland) page. If you can support the remarks that I have questioned: do so; otherwise do not even attempt to revert my request for citations. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LewRockwell.com

What makes you think that Rockwell would object to the label "anarchist" with regards to LRC? Rockwell's Rothbardian anarchocapitalism is well-documented (See Talk:Lew_Rockwell#Removing_Anarchist_Classification). DickClarkMises (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think WP:NPOV allows us to say which is the "true" anarchism. I personally know lots of anarchocapitalist types who also refer to themselves as anarchists, but of course the black-flag-waving anarchists would disagree because of the difference on property rights. Since both classes of ideologues use the term fairly often in reference to themselves I would say that the category should include both sorts of anarchist simply as a matter of common usage. Going deeper and coming up with the "answer" for Wikipedia purposes would be a WP:OR/WP:SYN problem too, I think. Again, I really just want to avoid stepping in the bear trap of trying to tell some people they are incorrect in using a term while endorsing the term's use for others. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Blake rephrase

Regarding the section of influences and adaptation of his work, i've rephrased it now but can we have some citations to back up the claims. I've seen it all too often that these mini-lists degenerate in to unverifiable, random claims or just plain lies. Citation makes their inclusion more relevant and provides links to articles which may be of interest to the reader. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me?

I wonder if you can help me with a problem I have. I've been following the edits of the ISP editor User:64.41.7.95, and I have reverted the majority of them because they generally do not improve the articles. They're not vandalism, per se, but they substitute stilted or convoluted language for more straight-forward and understandable constructions. At times, they actually change the meaning of things, such as changing "presenting", the medical term in the article about Lyme Disease, into "present." In an film article, the words of a direct quote were changed. You reverted this editor's work in the Mexican Revolution article, so I think you can get a sense from that about what I mean.

As I say, if the edits aren't in good faith, they're a particularly insidious form of vandalism, because they would likely pass muster a significant percentage of the time, since they're close enough to being acceptable that they don't draw attention to themselves.

My question is -- where do I go with this problem? I'd appreciate any advice you'd care to pass on. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply - I'll get some evidence together and ponder how to present it at ANI so I'm not laughed off the page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In casy you're interested, I posted at ANI Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Illich

Good day. I've been patiently awaiting a response to a question I've left on the Ivan Illich talk page. I don't know of any source in which he self-identifies as an anarchist, which I need before I can add him to the list of anarchists currently being built. As you've just responded to an attempt to remove notation of him being an anarchist catholic, perhaps you would know of a citation I may use. Any assistance would be appreciated. --Cast (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks & a Tip O' the Hat

Thanks for the note about the Int'l Agrarian Bureau. I should add at sometime that in 1947 the IAB was reorganized as the International Peasant Union. I have an interest in those political and economic paths that lay outside the mainstream: Agrarianism, Distributism, Social Catholicism and so forth. I see from your entry we share several other interests: Scottish heritage (Clan MacRae), the Celtic nations, science fiction, coffee and Guinness. Cheers! LAWinans (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merci

I wanted to thank you for you constant watching of the article Quebec sovereignty movement. You have more patience than I do... :-) I always intended to come back to it and do a good job at sourcing it, same for History of the Quebec independence movement, but as you surely know these are complex and controversial topics requiring a careful choice of words, a lot of research, a lot of reading... Before doing anything though, I thought it made sense to start a bibliography on the subject, which I did here:

The subject of Quebec's independence is of course inseparable from the broader topic of Quebec nationalism and I also started hunting references for it, which I listed here:

fr:Utilisateur:Mathieugp/Brouillons/Nationalisme québécois
User:Mathieugp/drafts/History of Quebec nationalism (not much yet: translation not even started)

There is a lot of online material (integral or excerpts), most in French, but still enough in English to write something decent using mostly English-language references. We'll get there! :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there probably is a lot that you could do to help out. Two heads are better than one in many situations. Not to mention it would keep me motivated and focused on this task. :-) Can you read French pretty good? If not, I'll try to think of things that could be done with English-only sources. -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: 74.230.99.202

I've blocked the IP for 48 hours. I find that revert, block, ignore is the best defense in cases like this. GlassCobra 23:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RBI will not work in this case because I am not an attention seeking vandal. This is a matter of principle. The Whiskey In The Jar article will be maintained in an appropriate manner and I will not allow RepublicanJacobite to continue vandalizing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.80.126 (talk • contribs) (23:25, 8 July 2008)

Sure thing. Both semi-protected for a week. That should help things a bit. GlassCobra 22:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sorted your stalkers latest run, hope you don't mind;)--Domer48 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see they were back. Sorry I missed it. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see he's indefinitely blocked now....shame! 15 cans of Stella₃₀₃ 03:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oy! And I thought I was going to get some peace. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, did I miss the fun? Darn. GlassCobra 03:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he's promised to return, worry not! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE User talk:81.155.33.186

In exactly what way have I (81.155.33.186) added "unsourced or original content"? Many thanks. Is mise le meas. D.de.loinsigh (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2008

recent edits by the above ip that you reverted

I'm curious some reverts you did recently. One example is this. I can understand reverting the british part, but the line above says | birth_place=Ballybot, [[County Armagh]], [[Northern Ireland]]. If you agree he was born in Ireland, wouldn't that make him Irish? If you don't agree that he was born in Ireland, shouldn't the "birth place" line be removed as well?--Rockfang (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a moment, could you respond please?--Rockfang (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated for people born in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement gives people the right to self-identify as Irish, British or both. The IPs edits were horrendously bad, labelling both republicans and unionists as both Irish and British without a single source, which given the sensititivty of nationality when it comes to Northern Ireland is a bad idea. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks for the info.--Rockfang (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I was not too happy with your tone, I obviously read the article - otherwise I would not have edited it. It is far from clear, it states one date with a year, and then a date without a year, at no time does it make it clear both events were within the same year.

Oh and since you are trying to imply that I did not read/understand what has been said, I might suggest that you look a little closer at my edit summary, I did not accuse anyone, I asked a question - there is a world of difference between questions and accusations. I just find all the little coincidences in wikipedia quite interesting, just after I edit the bloody sunday article, I have 3 editors all turn up to revert me on another article. Wouldn't it be interesting if those three editors all had something in common?

Anyway have a nice day, and feel free to be a little more careful with your tone in future. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song lyrics

Some WP:SPA randomer went through a few talk pages last year (notably those for Connolly and Pearse) and inexplicably dropped in some "rebel song" lyrics. The ones at Talk:Patrick_Pearse remain. Guliolopez (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RIRA

I just went through the CIRA page, and there was no mention of the pronouncement on the latest IMC reports. Should there be a new section? I have added it into the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Irish_Republican_Army#Renewed_campaign_in_Northern_Ireland section as it seemed most appropriate. It talks about its potential and picking again after Omagh. It certainly doesn't go elsewhere: Origins, Objectives, Early campaign, Omagh bombing, Ceasefire, Return to activity (as you said already), Bombings in England, Arrests, Subsequent activities (not really an activity already done), Structure and status (already disputed thsi), and Weaponry Lihaas (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request

Your userpage was already semiprotected; I added move protection. I semi'd and moveprotected your talk page. Let me know when you want those removed. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I believe this is what you're looking for? GlassCobra 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Can you see that link? Non-admins might not be able to. If not, you should be able to see this. GlassCobra 17:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X-Files

Look, I know it doesn't belong in that section since it's not mytharc, but it's still important to note that some non-mytharc episodes did introduce important characters. I wanted to give it a section of its own, but GSK threw a fit over that and told me to incorporate them. What do you want me to do with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustex (talk • contribs) 01:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC) I already posted about it there, but no one responded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustex (talk • contribs) 01:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that could be phrased to not sound awkward in the character section. Mustex —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted there, but no one ever replied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustex (talk • contribs) 01:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinn Féin

You haven't explained your assertion that Irish Americans in "Southie" are inclined to support Sinn Féin rather than Fianna Fáil, the Republican Party. Is it because they're socialists; oppose the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and the illegal US blockade of Cuba; and support the PLO and ETA? Millbanks (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you on my Discussion page Millbanks (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment on the discussion page, which seems fair enough. In fact it is not only in Southie that Sinn Féin has this reputation, although they have very limited support in the Republic of Ireland, as was evidenced in last years' elections. My only other point is that I doubt if SF would claim to be heirs of Michael Collins, who was of course murdered by anti-Treaty forces. If anything, this claim would be made by Fine Gael. Le dea-mhéin. Millbanks (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all members of the Anarchist Task Force - about improvement of the AI-Wiki-page

I have just joined the Anarchist Task Force, and I have had some problems with publishing of my Anarchist International Wikipedia page, see my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International for the present version/proposal. This page needs improvements to reach Wiki-consensus, and this should be a somewhat collective project to avoid a "COI"-template. As I am new to editing here on Wikipedia I need help with the page, I hope for your cooperation with this improvement. As an introduction to this cooperation, feel free to read this note on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anna_Quist#Message_to_all_anarchists_on_Wikipedia_-_Anarchy_is_cooperation_without_coercion.2Fdestruction.2Fdeletion_-_about_the_deletion_of_the_AI-Wiki-page_and_cooperation_to_achieve_an_updated_AI-page_with_general_Wiki-consent .

Any contribution, matter of fact criticism, to give input and advice, or even contribute to new sections, will be helpful, and is much appreciated. Please join in the project...

(Anna Quist (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Adding pictures

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

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

Is there any legal problems if I do this?.

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

RE: The Troubles

Did this take care of it? GlassCobra 22:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't get access to the history? What do you mean?

As for the vandalism, just wanted to make sure that was what you were referring to. It was a vandal who's a little more skilled than most, to be certain. The "position: absolute" part that he added made it go to the top of the page. Unfortunately, not being a very skilled coder, I can't tell you more than that. It has indeed been fixed though. GlassCobra 23:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean. Looks like the text that the vandal included had obscured the top of the page. I'll make sure he hasn't screwed around on any other pages. Thanks for the heads up. :) GlassCobra 23:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions to Irish Culture

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

Oh Wikipedia, how I wish I could quit you

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

Nice Brokeback Mountain reference. EVCM (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen it Aldrich old chum, I'm terribly homophobic. Skomorokh 01:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker

I'll keep that in mind. If you ever get pestered again, just tell me or head to AIV. I'm starting to think longer blocks (2 days-1 week) will be needed. bibliomaniac 1 5 20:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have 1500 admins, almost 800 of which are currently active, and very much so. I'm pretty sure we have the firepower and the patience to deal with whatever army he has in mind. :) bibliomaniac 1 5 20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

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

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

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

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A humble request

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

That's okay I think I got the hang of it. Thanks anyway! --Banime (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not ver civil

Reported here Arzel (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attack and edit-warring to add an inadequately sourced rumor to Alaskan Independence Party. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool things down...

I realize things can get very heated in content disputes, but the comment you left on Arzel's user page was over the line. That's the sort of thing people get blocked for. I say this not to attack you, but as someone that has respect for your edit history and a great appreciation for your tireless efforts in fighting vandalism on many of the pages that I watch. I would suggest apologizing to him before this goes too far (there is already an open AN/I report about this, as you know). Please don't allow a relatively minor content dispute to escalate into something that leads to your exit from wikipedia. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I lost my temper over something of no great importance. But, to be clear, my first edit was to revert what I saw as the removal of sourced material by an editor with very few edits. Then, I reverted twice more, with what I felt were clear edit summaries, so I was not in violation of 3RR. I had no intention of reverting a fourth time. The other editor, Arzel, suggested I "take it to talk" when he reverted me the 2nd time, but the talk page discussion indicated he had been outvoted, which I mentioned in my 3rd edit summary. When he reverted again, I lost my temper. What I said to him was over the line, I admit that, and I am sorry. Clearly, it was not the proper response. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious why you used blogs to support this, since a cursory Google News search brought up mainstream media reports which support at least part of what you wrote. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have anything to do with the material being added to the article in the first place, Ed, I was merely reverting the removal of sourced material. After that things escalated. I read the argument Arzel made on the talk page, was not swayed by it, and honestly believed he was trying to remove the material because he simply did not like it. The majority of those commenting on the talk page disagreed with his argument. Furthermore, Daily Kos was not the only source quoted, so the argument that it was inadequate on its own seemed to be beside the point. The allegation that I was intentionally edit-warring and pushing false information with inadequate sources is not quite accurate. I was reverting what seemed to me to be deletion of valid material that other editors had defended.

All of this aside, losing my temper, as I have already stated, was unjustified and I regret it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I can surely understand why you felt it was legitimate information, at least as far as what I've read about it. It's unfortunate to lose your temper, but all too human (as I well know!) when pushed in this way. Best, Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ed. Honestly, I feel the 24 hour block was a bit much. The question is, do I ride it out, or ask to be unblocked. Considering the apology has been made and accepted, I think the matter is settled. The edit-warring accusation is wrong, quite frankly, and is a separate issue from the personal attack. At least, that is how I see it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need somebody else telling you that comment was inappropriate, because you already know that. There will always be revert warriors on Wikipedia, people who claim consensus when there isn't, misrepresent issues, and try to provoke you. You can't let them get the best of you, just make sure your sources are strong, stand firm, and ignore their bullshit. Gamaliel (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gamaliel, your advice is well taken. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Appology accepted. Look, that Palin was a member of the AIP has been an ongoing rumor for sometime. Records show that she was a registered Republican during the time Clark made her statement. Clark then gave an official statement that she has never been a member of the AIP. Unfortuately, this aspect continues to be pushed giving the impression that there is something to hide, some scandal in that she really was a member. This kind of stuff really needs to be nipped in the bud for BLP reasons, and to keep these rumor from propogating themselves. As a side note, I have been to Ireland. Guinness at the brewery is a must, and the Ring of Kerry and Cliffs of Moher are sites to behold. Arzel (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting my apology. It was sincere.

As for the other matter, I really have no dog in that race. The AIP article is on my watchlist, and I reverted what looked like an ideologically-motivated deletion, then I reverted your reversion. Then, I let the whole thing get to me when, in reality, it mattered so very little to me in the first place. My untoward comment to you was the result of overall frustration, not simply this tempest in a teacup. Again, though, it was inappropriate. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I had turned the computer off and gone to bed, but I find, over breakfast, that you've apologized very graciously, the other user has accepted very graciously and requested your unblock on my talk page, and all is hearts, flowers, and twittering little birdies in the world of Sarah Palin drama. I unblocked you immediately, of course. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you, sincerely. Unfortunately, I attempted to thank you on your talk page, but I find that my IP is apparently still autoblocked. Can you do something about that, please? Thanks. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it; try it now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Good day Mr Jacobite.

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

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

Thanks in advance, Inchiquin (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for your help. Inchiquin (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rebellion" of Lower Canada

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

No relevant material was removed: I moved it all to:

Bibliography of the 1837-1838 insurrections in Lower Canada

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

Battlelore

What was wrong with quoting Allmusic as a reference for Battlelore being influenced by LotR? De728631 (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a whole article on the subject which was wikilinked and which in turn provides references via the band's homepage etc. ;) De728631 (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might've overlooked that, because the earliest draft from 2004 did already mention Tolkien. Anyhow, I added my source to back up the claim. Let's forget about this and have a stout. :) De728631 (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newton and Blake

Lithoderm has created this thread:[1] seems like a good place to begin fixing the issue..Modernist (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AfD

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

Competition Cams Article

Comment - The Competition Cams article has been completely rewritten and re-cited with new, more credible sources. I urge each editor that has previously voted against the articles notability, neutrality, etc. to please reconsider.

--Jabarke1 (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

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