User talk:Jtdirl/Archive 13
In the news
[edit]I understand that you might have disagreed with me when you made this edit on ITN, but I would appreciate it if you would leave a note in the edit summary or on the talk page explaining why. Rollback is best reserved for clear instances of vandalism or stupidity. Another user has since reverted your edit. Also, you might want to look at the debate on the talk page. This link is Broken 01:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Parliament of the United Kingdom
[edit]Could you have a look at the Parliament of the United Kingdom and related articles which I've tried to make less anglocentric - Derek Ross suggested you might be able to assist. The History section gave a long chunk of English history and no mention of the odd union with anyone else, so I've changed it to have summary histories of the component national parliaments with mention of the two Irish dates, cobbled together a Parliament of Great Britain page (instead of that being a redirect to the UK parliament page), and shoved the long chunk into a new Parliament of England page. The Irish section is summarised from the Parliament of Ireland article, but I can claim no expertise in any of these areas. I've also added mentions of Scots law where relevant in the UK parliament article, but have no idea to what extent the Welsh Assembly and Stormont (when it's in operation) have legislative power, so that may need sorting...dave souza 21:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Did you page-protect Pope Pius XII due to vandalism a few days ago? If so, could you please unprotect it if the vandals have been blocked? I have no intention of editing it, but the request to lock it permanently is rather annoying. Robert McClenon 16:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Changes to 1996 Manchester City Centre bombing
[edit]I have a question about your revert of this article. There is an on-going revert war with this article, and I was wondering how you justify changing it. In the interests of full disclosure, I also consider it a terrorist attack. But how do you respond to someone claiming it isn't? Obviously User:Lapsed Pacifist would claim that it wasn't. Can't some people argue this is a POV issue? I'm not getting involved though, as I have enough vandalism/revert issues right now!
By the way, I'm from Galway. That is a nice user page you have. Cheers. --PhilipO 02:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Re: Consort box
[edit]Great! Thanks a lot for doing that. --Matjlav(talk) 03:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? Debrett's and current Wikipedia articles disagree with you. They all say "Sir." --Matjlav(talk) 21:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I've never seen "Sire" recommended as a spoken address. Even the Royal web site says "For male members of the Royal Family the same rules apply, with the title used in the first instance being 'Your Royal Highness' and subsequently 'Sir'.". Proteus (Talk) 10:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Certainly it used to be. (I've a manual from 1964 recommending its use.) And that last time I was in contact with the royals, about a month ago, it was the pronounciation recommended. They may no longer spell it in the old way. My God! Even royalty are catching up with the times (positive view) or dumbing down traditions (negative view).
FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 22:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
View on the Royal Marriages Act
[edit]I would appreciate your view on Talk:Queen's Privy Council for Canada regarding whether the Royal Marriages Act applies in Canada. One user thinks that the Act is part of Canadian law since it effects the line of succession. I say it does not effect the line of succession directly, and thus is only a UK law and the Queen only takes British govenrment advice on the matter. Any views or comments? Astrotrain 20:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm asking you about this, because I often see your name on talk pages or edit histories for members of the British Royal Family. At the bottom of articles for female members, there's a box with "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by". When I look at United Kingdom order of precedence#The Royal Family, I see that the Queen is first, then Princess Anne, then Princess Alexandra, then Camilla. It says the same thing at Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall#List of styles. However, if I go to the bottom of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, where that box is, it says that she's preceded by Sophie, and succeeded by Beatrice. If I look at the Queen, it says she's succeeded by Camilla. If I look at Princess Anne, it says that she's preceded by Sophie and succeeded by Beatrice. If I look at Princess Alexandra, it says she's preceded by Prince Michael, and succeeded by Baroness Amos.
I'd like to fix it, but I don't have the background knowledge to do so. If the problem were with the box showing who's next in line for the throne, I could go to Line of succession to the British Throne and find the information there. I trust the information there. I had a look at Order of precedence in England and Wales#Ladies, but it wasn't the same as the information given elsewhere on Wikipedia, so now I just don't know what to believe.
Could you take a look at it, or refer it to someone who'd know? Thanks. Ann Heneghan (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Ulster
[edit]New article, Northern Ireland naming dispute. BYOB. Tell a friend.
Lapsed Pacifist 01:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
| Image deletion warning | Image:Birkenau(thumbnail).jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion. |
Former President
[edit]Clearly she is no longer President of Ireland. An alternative will have to be found. The US presidents are shown as xth President. Perhaps that form could be used. Or if the term of office is included, "President of Ireland 19xx-19xx", then that too would indicate that a former president is no longer serving.
Having the information box headed "Mary Robinson / President of Ireland" gives a misleading impression that she is the President of Ireland.
I have changed three former presidents to reflect these three styles. Please indicate which seems best to you. --Footsoldier 22:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Pope Pius XII
[edit]I dug deep into the history of the article and saw that you added venerable to the Pope Pius XII article. I attempted to verify this and provide a link. I could not find a link and removed the reference after giving a heads up in the talk page there. I want the article to be accurate so if you can recall (after 2 years) where you saw it reported that Pope Pius XII was a venerable I would be happy to add it as verified. patsw 03:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Then this truly was news from nowhere. patsw 23:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikimedia UK/Wikimania 2006
[edit]Hi, this is a circular to Wikipedians in Ireland to draw your attention to Wikimedia UK, where the establishment of a local Wikimedia chapter for the United Kingdom (and possibly for the Republic of Ireland) is being discussed. See the talk page, as well as the mailing list; a meetup will take place to discuss matters in London in September, for anyone who can get there. On another topic, plans are being drawn up for a UK bid for Wikimania 2006, which would be conveniently close to Ireland. On the other hand, Dublin's bid was one of the final three last year - might we bid again? --Kwekubo 04:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
{{vprotected}}
Temporarily protected to stop any more reversions by sockpuppets of banned Wikistalker User:Skyring tonight. (He has made two so far in the last few minutes). Apologies for any inconvenience. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)