User talk:AndyJones

Welcome!

Hello, AndyJones, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've answered your question at the help desk. If you have any more questions, do not hesistate to ask me (click on the "A note?" link in my signature, and edit that page). Once again, welcome! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritance Tax (United Kingdom)

Looks great! Remember that you should always be bold when updating pages. Because I am not an expert in that field, I cannot judge it; however, Wikipedia does have a peer review process where other editors will leave input for you. In addition, I commend you for leaving some notes at the talk page; this is extremely helpful! While a justification isn't required for every edit, it's great that you did so. Happy editing, and don't hesistate to ask me anything! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only just seen this - good stuff: it is nice to see some tax professionals contributing. You may like to add a link to it at Taxation in the United Kingdom, and expand the summary paragraph there ion IHT. There should probably also be a short summary paragraph at Inheritance tax, which is meant to cover all jurisdictions, not just the US as it does at present. Finally, query whether it should be moved to United Kingdom inheritance tax, like United Kingdom corporation tax. But, once again, well done. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and thanks for the articles on Furniss v. Dawson and the Ramsay Principle, but query whether they ought to be merged, probably at the latter; and some discusion of later cases, particularly Macniven v. Westmoreland and Barclays v. Mawson, would be welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain?

Why did you vote abstain when you could have voted me a pony? After things wikisettle for me a bit, I'll see what I can do about restarting the HS discussion. I bet we can get buy-in. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Trust (Law)

I think a link to Trust (Law) USA, should be in the disambiguation page Trust (I don't know if it is right now), and then from there a link to the current Blind trust page, which I think is more of a stub right now. Go ahead with the change you think fits better, I'm sure you are better qualified for doing this since you are a lawyer. I'm just a computer programmer. Thanks Homerotl 01:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ramsay Principle

thanks for starting this article. I removed the following text from the top of the article:

I am in the process of writing this page. I am saving it in small blocks to the internet as I go. If you are seeing this message you are looking at an intermediate version of the article. (If you are seeing this message after, say, 3 October 2005, I have died, or got bored, or something and you should remove it.) AndyJones 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason being articles aren't supposed to contain anything but encyclopedic information - you can post messages mentioning the status of the article on the talk page but the idea with articles is to pretend wikipedia is a real encyclopedia - just as you wouldn't find notes in Brittanica saying "I haven't finished this section yet!", you shouldn't be able to find them in wikipedia. Of course my analogy is a bit odd, because you wouldn't find incomplete articles in Brittanica anyway, but the policy with wikipedia is that even the pages that aren't yet nearly finished shouldn't lapse from an encylopedic tone or refer to themselves. After all, all articles here are works-in-progress.

Keep up the good work. --81.154.236.221 18:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"Snow"

Again, my current proposal is to merge all the stubs into a general article about the Poetry of Mao Zedong which is a broad topic you could really expand on then link to Wikisource which is where all source documents SHOULD be. Sasquatcht|c 22:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bryants etc.

Liked your approach on the Bryant afd. Good work. AndyJones 23:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just trying to do due dilligence and actually support my arguements.--Isotope23 00:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare on screen

Great work!! Very impressive. The Singing Badger 20:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied?

I saw you use the term userfied on AfD. What does it mean?—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Destiny

I'll talk to him, perhaps via email. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a belated barnstar

Hey, thanks for the cudos! Funny, I only just noticed it now. That's very kind of you. Cheers! --PullUpYourSocks 03:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Very good work!AndyJones 12:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good Humour

Thanks for the Barnstar of Good Humour! — TheKMan^talk 00:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam reversion

No, you did quite right. I gave the guy fair warning, and he did nothing, so that's what happens. BDAbramson T 22:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mooney (Blogger)

Hi AndyJones. Just a quick word with regard to the Paul Mooney (blooger) thing. I hadn't realised that there was already a discussion going on on the matter. I was using CryptoDerk's vandal fighter and saw it come up. I took one look at it and thought "nonsense!". I'll try to be a bit more thorough in my investigations before marking as Afd in the future. So, thanks for setting me straight on the matter! Much appreciated! KC. 17:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foo

Hi Andy, when I say "collapse [[foo|foo]]", I mean that I take any wiki link where the description part and the article to link to are the same, and remove the redundant description part. So [[Buffy the vampire slayer|Buffy the vampire slayer]] is redundant, it can be replaced by [[Buffy the vampire slayer]]. Foo is a metasyntactic variable commonly used in programming. Hope this helps. Cmdrjameson 19:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mooney (blogger)

All right, I understand what you're saying, but I still think a speedy could have worked better. Now you have to wait a week before things can progress, but if it was speedied you could report the guy for vandalism as soon as he tried to touch the Paul Mooney the comedian article. In any case, it doesn't really matter now, you've got the consensus already and I hope you won't have to waste any more time on that blogger guy. Flyboy Will 19:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Internet legal resources in UK

Saw your comment that there was no internet resource for UK court decisions on the Case citation page. Thought you may like to check out BAILII. Maybe an email to the council of law reporting about releasing the copyright on the backsets to BAILII would be good if you are in the UK.

Regards FedLawyer 03:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

BAILII

AndyJones,

It saddens me that you would find it more appropriate to delete a link to annother free info database because it has been denied public documents (judgments) by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting, rather than write to the Council and use your efforts to have them release the copyright. AustLII had similar problems until enough people supported it - indeed even Wikipedia was limited to start with. Is it not time to send people to the site so that they can complain that the common law of England is copyrighted to the Incorp council of law reporting who (with your favoured commercial link sites) will charge them a fee if they want to know the law (which, of course, they are presumed to know).

But, it is not for an Australian lawyer to emancipate the Brits. I leave it for you to restore the BAILII link, unless you think that we should all be denied awareness of the free access legal database of the UK because it is presently crippled by the Incorp Council.

Regards FedLawyer 13:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Newbie

I see Raul's answered your question, but thanks for thinking of me! By the way, we usually get lots of new users with an email address as the username; most never edit or make only one or two edits. I'd mainly be concerned about the ones that will become regular contributors. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Newbie

Hi. I noticed you gave User:Nihitmehta08@yahoo.com a hint about user names. I kinda suspect he doesn't know he's become a user. He's been posting homework questions at my talk page, calling himself "anonymous", and I've had to politely decline, both there and at his own talk page (which he may or may not be aware even exists). Cheers JackofOz 02:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get the impression he's very young. Oh, well. AndyJones 12:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wars of the Roses disambiguation

I think it is anachronistic and (which is worse) misleading to describe the lands between the Irish Sea and the North Sea, excluding Scotland, as "Britain". I suspect the medievals would agree since (if I remember my Malory correctly) they tended to distinguish between Britain the Less (Brittany) and Britain the Great. I'm not very well read in this area but it sounds wrong to me. Can you provide any contemporary source that describes this stretch of land as "Britain"? Then again, you must do as you think right. I am dealing with enough articles not to want to get involved in another. The reason we Englanders know we're top nation in these isles is because Celts like yourself get so chippy about denying it ;-) Stroika 00:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Everyonesacritic.net

Hi Andy, Since your vote for delete on this AfD, I have since cleaned up to adhere to NPOV and provided evidence of Notability. Could you please change your vote to keep?

Thanks,

--Dave 21:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because

Biased persons are trying to revert it to the overly, eqaully biased article it was. Courier new 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently funny

Don't know how closely you follow AfDs you already voted on (I try but sometimes fail due to the size of my watchlist) but I did respond that I would like to know more about the Jimbo locking and demonstrating the page story. Thanks. Turnstep 02:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied, there. AndyJones 10:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Elizabethan Theatre

Greetings! Since you are one of the three people who post frequently on the William Shakespeare talk page, I thought I would include you in this.

If you haven't noticed, I've been trying to push WikiProject Theatre a bit. Someone on the talk page noted that the project is really very large and I agree. So in order to break up some of the work and concentrate it, I have decided to break up WikiProject Theatre into a series of smaller theatre projects. The first of these is WikiProject Elizbethan theatre. This project, spanning the 84 years between the beginning of Elizabeth I's reign to 1642 when the Puritans closed the theatres, covers such names as Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe and Ben Jonson. It aims to expand Wikipedia's coverage of the Elizabethan theatre as well as bringing the articles up to a high level of quality (close to or attaining FA status).

This project has not actually been launched as an official project yet, but the 2 main pages have been created on subpages of WikiProject Theatre and can be viewed here. I would like to get some feedback and suggestions before I officially launch the project. Please feel free to become a member of the project if you'd like. Please leave any messages regarding this here and I will watch your page. Thanks! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note. WikiProject Elizabethan theatre has officially been launched. Thanks for joining! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

changing username

hi, i just rembered recently i have id in winkpedia i went to my talk and saw your message telling me to change my username thanks for the help i was curious to know that did you ever read a book called lord of the flies or kane and abel

The two Trust (law) pages.

Hi there, I've proposed a re-merge of Trust (law) non-USA and Trust (law) USA - I understand you split them in the first place. Your contribution in the discussion at the relevant talk page would be appreciated. Thanks! Nuge talk 04:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British national poet

thanks for the support there, especially from a Shakespeare buff, to be perfectly honest with you though, I think both Burns and Shakespeare are universal rather than merely "national".

Shakespeare

Thanks for your nice comment on my work in your edit summary. Such is what keeps us wikiholics at the grindstone, Guinnog 21:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it:Astrud Gilberto

Hi, I've read your note, can I ask you what precisely did they say about it? Thank you :) --g 22:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well they weren't very specific. They've asked me not to put excerpts from their email onto Wikipedia, but they refer to "inaccurate staements and blunt lies". I can tell from their comments to me that the sections they object to disappeared from the English Wikipedia somewhere between these two versions, therefore whatever they disliked is on the left pane but not the right pane in that link. I don't know if that helps you, much. AndyJones 12:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS, compare also these versions. Magya is her management. AndyJones 12:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary International

It seems you begin an edit war on the Rotary page. Would you justify please. There is an explanation page. Can you edit it ? as a blind such an huge list as enlarged by Rotarians is not usable. Were is the problem in placing some header ?

another question : are you member of the Rotary Club ? You seem to have the profile for.

Thank you PierreLarcin2 20:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Rotary International.

A question: Does Pierre's argument that conventions used one language of the Encyclopedia can apply on another make sense? I thought each language has different policies as its user base requires. -- 127.*.*.1 12:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]