User talk:Jtdirl/Archive 14

JT: I left a few questions on your Ardbraccan entry which I hope you might be able to answer. Thanks. (apologies; I'm trying to make this a bold separate heading under "Ardbraccan" like 'WOW' or 'Thanks for Your support' below, but the heading formula put it at the top of the page)

---

As you may have noted, your signature causes problems when the tidy function on the server is turned off for performance reasons as has been done now.  Please add closing tags! to your spans and fonts!. Caerwine 23:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

NPA

Once again I'd like to remind you of WP:NPA. "Asshole" isn't an appropriat way to describe any wikipedian, no matter what they've done. --fvw* 03:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to agree here. Personal enemies shouldn't let you make Wikipedia your personal battleground. If you need to fight Skyring (whom I've read but never met), do it elsewhere. Gwyndon 01:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't leave (as you have apparently done)

We need people like you here. Ones who are not afraid to speak their mind and get into battles with disruptive users over what they know is right. I ask you to reconsider. I believe we can continue making this great encyclopedia. Regards, User:BratscheUser_talk:Bratsche04:16, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. 青い(Aoi) 08:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Though I think posting personal details was inappropriate, I can understand your frustration. Sometimes its hard to think of Wikipedia as anything other than a death march, but hopefully (like me) you're too addicted to leave for good. the wub "?/!" 10:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally identifiable information

Listing a person's full name and home address is inappropriate, regardless of who it is (unless maybe you're talking about the President of the United States or Michael Jackson). I have stripped the offending revisions from this history of this page. As a result of this, a couple of User:Jtdirl's changes have been attributed to User:Dmcdevit, who in fact simply removed the personally identifiable information. This page should have been archived a long time ago; there were over 1600 revisions. - Mark 08:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh no!

It is a sad day, Jtdirl. I very much hope this dosen't end up being an indefinite leave, and that you will return soon. Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C 14:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

However, Jtdirl should be stripped of admin position. Actually, it would be kindest if he himself renounces and gets desysopping. Arrigo 14:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

People seem to be saying that you've left -- I hope that's not true. But even if it is, I am confident you'll return. (I never did find out where you went last time.) Have a nice break, and make it a shorter one this time. Deb 16:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like he was fighting a stalker all night (his time) and finally decided that he didn't need this. The lack of support he got from fellow Admins seems hard to justify. ([1] and [2]) and he just didn't have the persistent of his obsessive opponent. Admittedly, he has pushed his luck on a few occasions but we all have a right to be defended from permanently blocked vandals. --Red King 17:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm a relatively new user here, and I found his support and help trying to maintain NPOV across several articles to be both useful and inspirational. Dedication to a completely voluntary role can't be easy, and it seems that it was made even harder by his treatment by many users. I was glad for his help, though. Nearside 17:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I've seen too many good people leave the project over worthless prats. Take some time off, rest, and we'll deal with that prick Skyring. Best regards, and hoping to see you back, Mackensen (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

What is going on? is Jtdirl leaving because of Skyring??? I hope not --ClemMcGann 23:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you do, please don't leave because of a troll. You'll have proper community support now, because people are finally starting to realize how serious this was. I'm sorry I didn't offer you more support — I can only plead ignorance of the extent of the harassment — but rest assured that you'll have my active support when you return. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:46, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I may have disagreed with your actions, but I still don't think you should leave because of Skyring. If for nothing else, I don't think you should give him - or any troll - the satisfaction. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

So long, and thanks for all the fish, Jtdirl. Though I've never worked with you, your articles have been an inspiration to me as a Wikipedian and as an Irishman. Thanks for eveything. --Blackcap | talk 04:17, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Oh gosh! When did this all happen? I look away for a day and you've apparently left us. I sincerely hope this isn't so. I knew Skyring had been using sock puppets and attacking you on WikiEN-1, but I was unaware it had escalated to such a point. Seems we were right about him all along. However, perhaps it is best for you to take a break, a breath, and a moment to put things into perspective. Although we've not much interacted, I think you're aware of the respect I have for you. I have no doubt at all that Wikipedia is disadvantaged by your absence, and for that reason, I plead for your return. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about this, I hope to see you back again sooner rather than later. Demiurge 08:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Illegitimi non carborundum, Jtdirl. ;-) Craigy (talk) 10:00, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't leave. Don't give those who are valueless the satisfaction of negating a contributer of great value.--Scimitar ^parley 19:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to see what has happened, Jtdirl, and I would welcome you back. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 20:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be a shame for Jtdirl to leave. He is a great Wikiepdian editor. Astrotrain 22:17, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Even me, someone who has had disagreements with jtdirl, feels he should stay. He is a level-headed Irish user and he helped me out when I first joined.--Play Brian Moore 19:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Please Come Back

I don't know why you left, or whether you have left permanently, or just for a period of time. If you were being stalked by sock-puppets of a banned user, are other admins aware of the problem? Please come back sometime. Robert McClenon 18:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe this, is it true? Please come back, you are a good user, you do great work, and your defence of Deb against Arrigo is admirable. Gryffindor 08:47, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Jt, Please support my request for adminship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom

Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

WOW

Where in the living crap did you get that image of O'Donovan Rossa from? That is amazing.. Brilliant man, well done!! --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Hello! I have an admin nomination going on. I have contributed to several Pope articles in which you have also worked. I would be glad if you voted on it, be it for it, neutral or against it.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 19:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

vote here!

Final decision reached

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis 2 case. →Raul654 17:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks people for the support

Thanks, folks, for all your kind comments, both here and by email. They were deeply appreciated. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Skyring

No problem - just good to see you back. Had my own sockpuppetting stalker in the past few weeks mind, maybe trolls don't like the surname... --Kiand 22:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

template

Where is the discussion? Your code was broken, I fixed it. As for the appearance, if you look at any page on which this appears, e.g. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, you'll notice that every other infobox, image box and navigation box looks as I have styled it. Having one infobox in a totally arbitrary styling (no doubt agreed on by a few users in a small discussion somewhere because it looks "pretty") makes the pages look unprofessional. ed g2s • talk 00:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Omar Abu Omar

You requested further information regarding the naming of Abu Qatada (sorry, Omar Abu Omar) :), which I provided at Talk:Omar Abu Omar. You may not be watching the article so I point it out here. Rd232 23:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Email

Your email address appears to be incorrect, I'm getting a "no such account" bounce. --fvw* 02:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Now corrected. A stray capital or two had slipped in. :-) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Email isn't case sensitive, and it doesn't work without caps either. --fvw* 02:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. The email address in the preferences is exactly as my email a/c is written. (I had it open at the time on a different browser and double/treble checked.) I've done a cut and paste now from the actual email a/c. It looks the same but maybe preferences was reading something that isn't on the screen. Fingers crossed this time. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't get bounces from using wikipedia email, I was replying to the mail you sent me. If you've changed the address, please send me a fresh mail or something. --fvw* 03:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ian Paisley

Please read the article. There is already a section explaining that Paisley claims title to Doctorate, but that the Bob Jones University is not acredited. It was altered by User:Wallie along with some various other Pro-Unionist stance POV edits to the article, and changed from the original text I restored, to one that gave the impresion that his claim was undisputed.

When giving an honorific, only one honorific must be used. We have to chose one for this, so in the intrests of the most balenced POV, we have to use the least disputed title. Since Ian Paisley's claim on a Doctorate is significantly disputed, but his claim to Reverend is not, then we must consistantly use Rev. as his honorific. Please do not use the Dr. honorific, as this will confuse the reader.

I've discussed this with jguk and he's agreed that it makes more sence to remove the disputed honorific in favour of the undisputed one. As a matter of readability, it is imperative to use only one honorific consistantly, so I request that you should make your case to editing the page to replace all Rev. with Dr. not revert to a mixed use version. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 09:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not Neutral Point of View to give Ian Paisley special treatment on this. By the above Wikipedia guidelines, by common english useage, and by texts on etiquete of titles and honorifics, the correct useage is Rev. Ian Paisley.

Again, even if you were to accept that the Doctorate was valid, it is still not the correct useage, as Rev. precedes all other titles in presidence, and Rev. Dr. is incorect useage. (See Debrette's Etiquette)

There is no POV here. The article did mention he was also known as Dr., and highlighted reasons it is disputed, and no aditional footnotes, putting Dr. in quotes, or other such is needed. What is needed is to follow the general guides on naming conventions.

Again, please do not revert. If you feel the naming guidelines are incorect, then gather a concensus that agrees with you, and atempt to change them. If you feel that Ian Paisley does require a special exemption, then that would be an issue we should poll for concensus on. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 01:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You are confusing how we refer to him, and how we report that he is refered to. They are seperate things, and should be kept so.

The article should note that he is also refered to by Dr., but we must refer to him ourselves with a consistant name and title which is consistant with our guidelines.

To use a naming convention for Ian Paisley that is based on how people refer to him, is to reflect a point of view, not the neutral one. The neutral one can be best atained by looking at what standard useage for all names and titles are, and applying it to Paisley. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 01:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

In reference to 'the most common rule'. It is untrue that the naming guideline says that when there are two common titles, both must be used. It says the most common *name* must be used. Even if your reading of the guideline was acurate, a check of news articles indexed by Google news turns up intresting statistics. About 89 news articles for Dr. Ian Paisley, about 865 for Rev. Ian Paisley. On this grounds, I conclude that Rev. is the most common honorific used in media. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 02:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wanting to avoid accusation of bias is not a good reason to introduce bias to 'ballence' an article. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 02:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Range blocks

See m:Range blocks, although it's a bit on the dry side. Usually what I do is this:

Write each of the numbers of the IP addresses to be blocked out in binary. Taking two random examples,

203.51.25.203 = 11010011 00110011 00011001 11001011 
203.51.32.254 = 11010011 00110011 00100000 11111110
                                    *

Find the position of the first bit that isn't the same. In this case it's in position 19 (I've marked that with an asterisk above). Make a note of the position.

Write out an address again in binary, with zeros in every position starting with the one that differed, and convert it back to numbers. So, in this example,

                    *
11010011 00110011 00000000 00000000 = 203.51.0.0

So, at Special:Blockip, you would enter 203.51.0.0/19 (where 19 was the position calculated above).

A few cautions are probably in order. First, range blocks should be kept as small as possible (e.g. last night I blocked two /21's instead of one /19 to halve the number of affected addresses). Such blocks should also be kept quite short, and you should monitor your e-mail in case this affects any legitimate users. Again, see m:Range blocks for more discussion on this. Hope this helps, JYolkowski // talk 21:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Skyring again

Yeah, he doesn't seek to get the part where Wikipedia retracts its invitation for him to edit. I don't care if his edits are good or bad: he's banned, and I'm reverting on site. I should use a edit summary of reverting skyring vandalism or something, but rollbacks too nice. *yawn* is correct. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 00:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

that was amusing

I Doc award this for making me laugh 27/10/05. "00:12, 25 October 2005 Jtdirl blocked "User:Statue of limitations" with an expiry time of indefinite"

Image:

Please unprotect protected pages

Respected Sir/Madam,

You have accurately carried out Wikipedia policy by reverting all edits made by a banned user irrespective of their merits. However, subsequently protecting these pages is not doing Wikipedia a service. Pages such as BookCrossing and Military operations other than war are falling increasingly out of date as a consequence of being protected. Protection for long periods causes problems rather than solving them, as is made clear in Wikipedia policy.

Since you have been granted adminship it is not unreasonable to make the assumption that you are a sensible and responsible editor. As such, I feel it is your duty to to unprotect these pages for editing and seek other methods to deal with edits by banned users. Please take action in a manner that causes Wikipedia to benefit and inch closer towards the position of the most extensive and reliable source of information on this planet.

Thank you.

Yours Sincerely, Shish Basu Palit Wikipedia Editor

Template:Test6

Can you tell me what was wrong with my version? Please do not abuse the rollback buttion. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 23:28

Just because they were unilateraly agreed upon in the past doesn't mean they can't be improved upon. It should be fairly obvious to the user who commits the vandalism that they are commiting vandalism, so for us to tell them "you are vandalizing" is to state the obvious, and does not provide them any other route. We've identified them as a known vandal, they'll continue to remain vandals. My only intention is to reduce the vandalism on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what yours is. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 23:40

Alright, I'll leave 4-6 alone. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 23:58

Capodimonte Observatory

It looks like you got into an edit war with an IP address in the Capodimonte Observatory page I was working on, apparently over a space before "meter". I came back to move it into the "Category:Astronomical observatories in Italy" page, but found it protected. Could you unprotect the page for me? Thanks--Rayc 20:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

RSF/CIRA sockpuppet

Hi, here's a list of the ISPs used by the vandal (User:217.43.172.38 for convienience) who persistently POVs the pages relating to RSF/CIRA/Tom Maguire/Fianna Éireann etc. Any idea on how he can be dealt with once and for all? --Damac 14:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello!

Hey, what's this? I go on holiday and you come back! I hope it's nothing personal! (Only joking, nice to see you.) Deb 22:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, been cruising the Med! Deb 17:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Bush

Thanks, but I must confess I stole it from somewhere else. Here is a photo of mine from the heart of antipodean hibernianism. Adam 07:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Statue of Daniel O'Connell at St Patrick's Cathedral, Melbourne

A favour

Hello! You don't know me and I don't know you but I've had a look at your edits (insert creepy, Psycho-type music) and you know things I don't about Ireland... which isn't difficult as I know almost nothing.

By necessity, I've had to mention Anglo-Irish historical politics, briefly, in the article Irish Peace Tower. I do this with trepidation, as the last time I wrote an article (not here) that mentioned Ireland, I got about 200 hundred emails with 200 different points of view and a unanimous agreement that I was an idiot.

Would you check Irish Peace Tower for accuracy and NPOV? The references plainly weren't NPOV in places, but I still may have picked up the tone. Alternatively, I may have gone too far the other way. I guess I'm just saying that I'm not 100% comfortable that it's right and I'd like an expert to double-check.

Sorry if this is a hassle - feel free to decline without reason. Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

County Londonderry/Derry

Jtdirl. This topic has been gone over to death in the Northern Ireland article. The City is now refered to, and accepted on Wikipedia, as Derry as the city council changed it even though it has received no new charter. The County is Londonderry and has been for a considerable time and it's name is not in dispute. Wikipedians have been over this topic and it has been agreed, by both sides, to leave it as City of Derry and County Londonderry. Ben W Bell 22:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Also on this topic I'm not the one pushing agendas. County Londonderry is what the county is called, by calling it County Derry you are the one putting POV on the topic, not I. In all my years living there there was never a dispute over the naming of the county, city yes, county no. Ben W Bell 22:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If you think that, Ben, then you are the only place in Stroke City who thinks that. It is laughable rubbish. There is a legal/local government name, County Londonderry. There is a name used in geography, Derry. Nationalists call it County Derry, never ever County Derry. Unionists call it County Londonderry or sometimes County Derry. (Gregory Campbell, who was a guest speaker at a political meeting I attended, called it "County Derry" and "County Londonderry" interchangeable. What is it about both sides in the North, whether unionist or nationalist, that leads both sides behave as complete bigots over names? Tonight on one page I'm been attacked by a Continuity IRA supporter for daring to stop him POVing articles to sing the CIRA's praise. On another I'm accused of POVing an article by stopping a Unionist POV from being added into an article. No wonder most people in the south are heartily sick of the North and both communities in it. Frankly, both communities deserve each other. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

But County Londonderry isn't the true name for it, it is called County Londonderry. It was County Derry once, but that was a long time ago. Londonderry is it's official name, and the name used far and away by the majority of the population of the country in which it resides. Also where is it used as Derry geographically? I am not a rabid unionist, far from it, I just like to deal with fact. I get involved in many arguments with ignorant unionists who have no idea what they are talking about (unfortunately this applies to many people on both sides of the political debate in Northern Ireland). You are suggesting we change somethings actual name because a minority of people refer to it as something else. Should we change the name of the Republic of Ireland article to The South because that's how most people in Northern Ireland refer to it? Of course not, that is not what it is called. Most of the time I couldn't care less about the stupid Republican/Unionist arguments in Northern Ireland, I am technically unionist simply because I was born there, am British and my family is still there and happy to be British. It all simply boils down to the fact that County Londonderry is it's name, and is a name you have been quite happy to have in the article for a long long time as you have edited it many times in the past, now all of a sudden you want to go against that. Even the CIA Worldbook lists it as County Londonderry (and the US is hardly an unbiased resource when it comes to Northern Ireland). Ben W Bell 07:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sticking my oar in uninvited I know (just checking for another uninvited guest), but it was never County Derry - such a county has never existed. County Londonderry was carved out of County Coleraine and County Fermanagh - see the article. Recognising that this argument can go on for ever, most Wikipedians accept that there is "equality of misery" on both sides if the city is called Derry and the county is called Londonderry. --Red King 21:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello there

Hello there. I imagine you don't know who I am, but I've been noticing some of your edits lately. I note that you hold some really strong opinions WRT Irish subjects, which is perfectly okay (and a good thing, as far as I'm concerned), but that you've been attacking people who you percieve as disagreeing with you on these subjects, which is definitely a problem. For example, there's this edit; I don't think Sherool has any grudge against the Irish Republic. Further down the page, you claim that "some idiot" removed another template from some articles.

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse people of acting in bad faith without evidence; generally, you'll get better results (and alienate fewer people) if you assume good faith. Please be civil and practice Wikiquette in the future, okay? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Irish Republic infobox

Hi, Can you point me at the discussion please? It's not an area I'm very expert in but I'll certainly have a look. Dlyons493 Talk 21:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:First MinistersNI

Hi, the template was not used or linked to from anywhere when I TFDed it, if nominating orphanded templates for deletion is vandalism then I'm guilty, otherwise pleace see WP:AGF. I came across it while I was working on cleaning up templates that incorporated "fair use" images, since it was not used I just listed it on TFD rather than removing all the images. Since it is now used I'l withdraw the TFD nomination, but that still leaves the image situation to be dealth with. If the images are "fair use" they can not be used in templates (or on user pages *chough*) per Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. If they can be replaced by images under a {{CrownCopyright}} or other free-ish licence then problem solved. --Sherool 21:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Spam

Please note that it is bad Wikiquette to spam user talk pages. violet/riga (t) 22:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Irish Republic infobox

Regarding this template, template messages are for use in multiple articles. This infobox is used in only one article, and will only ever be used in one article. Just in case you misunderstood what people are suggesting (which is the impression I get from your, er, "strong" comments in the deletion debate) is that the template should be deleted. That's the infobox in it's template form, not the infobox itself. The action that people are proposing is to substitute the infobox into the article proper and then delete the template page. Since there are more than a dozen votes for subst and delete, I have already subst'd the infobox into the article. As you can see, the infobox is still there (albeit without the TfD message). Hope this clears things up. Chris talk back 02:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this, but given that I don't entirely understand the technical details being discussed and the actual content and use thereof doesn't seem to be under threat, I'm not going to participate in the discussion. All the best, Palmiro | Talk 18:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm still around, but concentrating more on the Middle East, as I have more references available to me on that and I'm a bit more knowledgable on it. Speaking of which, Official IRA is rather inadequate, with huge chunks of what appear to be speculation about the political positions of elements involved, but just might be real quotes, and I don't really have any way to check them out. You might be able to help. Palmiro | Talk 19:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I've checked the article after the change and it doesn't appear to be damaged. Let me know if you feel that the Irish Republic article will be damaged so that I can support you.--File Éireann 18:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

General Humbert

Practically all of this article was lifted directly by the person who started it from the Irish politics wiki. Isin't that a form of plagarism?--File Éireann 20:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Monarch styles

Yikes! I had no idea all that went on! I would suggest putting a summary of all this on the talk pages of all the various style templates. Otherwise, someone (like me) will just wander in and change them. --JW1805 01:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, the main thing I don't like is that it seems like six lines of text are being used, when really only 3 are necessary. Maybe it looks different on other browers, but I see "Reference Style" "Spoken style" and "Alternative style" taking up two lines each. Can it be widened a bit so that it fits on one line? Or is "Style" really even necessary here? Could it just say "Reference", "Spoken", "Alternate"? --JW1805 01:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Message template question

You beat me to the punch in blocking that anon who was messing about with the Paul Martin picture. Good work. Question- where did you find the message template you used on the anon's talk page? I've seen a few similar message templates used as well as occasional shorthand references such as "G4" and the like but I have no idea where to find them listed. I'm a relatively new admin so I'm still learning the ropes. Thanks! 23skidoo 02:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. If you're in the process of revising the templates, perhaps you can set the block message to also include the username of the person who leaves the message. I noted that you didn't sign the message left on the anon's page. Cheers. 23skidoo 02:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry

Check the logs, I protected it a minute before your revert. Yes, my computer is running slow, so it took a minute for me to put the template up. But that's why there's a big warning to admins about editing a protected page before you do so. Besides, remember that the version it is protected on is not an endorsement. Protection is just an electric fence. Go work it out on the talk page. Dmcdevit·t 23:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't care why the edit war happened, or who is right. Protection is not an endorsement, it is only to force talk on the talk page, and not in edit summaries. You may well be right. If so, it sounds like Arbcom is the way to go. All I did was revert it to the way it was before I protected it. It may be that you opened the edit window before I protected, and then saved after. I'll readily accept that it was unintentional. I'm not accusing you of bad faith. But it still is more fair to before, as a non-admin, like Rex, would not have been able to unintentionally revert-while-protected like that. Whichever version happens to be protected is really only incidental to me. Dmcdevit·t 23:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

On First Gentleman

Thank you for chimming in on the "issue" of First Gentleman. I can not find anything on it and feel that it sounds stilted at best. I also have issues with "Second Lady" which I think sounds crass. Oh, well. Again, thanks Stu 01:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Emergency department

I wonder if you would consider supporting this article at Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Accident and Emergency Departments, as they are called in Ireland, are an extremely important place where we all go when we are very ill, yet we still do not have a decent article on this topic, demonstrating the different types of emergency department internationally.--File Éireann 18:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism Bill 2005

FYI we now (rather belatedly; if only the politics wikipedians were as dilligent as the Harry Potter wikipedians...) have a tentative Terrorism Bill 2005 article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Irish Government

Hi Jtdirl,

I have made a proposal at [3], if you have any comments I await them! Djegan 19:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:John Kerry

Please read this. Thank you.

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Cote d'Ivoire move

Hey Jtdirl, I understand you're upset about this page being at the spot it is, but I wanted to ask you separate from the talk page if you might tone down the rhetoric a bit. Words like "ridiculously ill-informed," "laughable," "ludicrousness," "amateurishness," and "unprofressional joke" may not be personal attacks yet but they're certainly not very good wikiquette. I hope you'll come to see that we're extremely well-intentioned users as well who hold a different opinion about what the most common English language usage might be here; enough major publications endorse both views that I think neither can be dismissed out of hand as ridiculous. Let's just calm down, and see how many style guides we can get our hands on--fair enough? --Dvyost 03:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

PS I like the Bush page. =)

Grace Kelly

To say that Grace Kelly is German is plain silly, to my mind. Why an Irish-American too? She hardly ever went near Ireland, or Germany for that matter. Probably better to call her an American-Monacan. After all she was born in America and later lived in Monaco for the rest of her life. With you argument, all American citizens are also African-Americans, as the first human beings all came from Africa. Wallie 07:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I see you are Irish. It always amazes me that Irish people proudly go on about Irish-Americans. Plenty of people from other countries are of Irish descent too, but this is rarely (never?) mentioned. You rarely hear of Irish-Pakistanis or Irish-South Africans. I think that even I can trace some Irish ancestry someshere. Can I say I am an Irish-German, as I lived in Germany for a year? Wallie 11:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Trolls

I removed your troll comment. By calling someone a troll, then you are giving them fodder, which equats to "feeding the troll". Just ignore him. If you want Kizzle to ignore him, then drop Kizzle a note, but dont put up troll comments on article talk pages(I did that once before and it does not work).Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 05:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire

Unfortunately, I have to go along with the French name, because it's become the default standard for the name of the country for a few years now. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

With regards to your last message, I've actually decided to bow out of this discussion for now--not really worth the wikistress. It's obvious you're a dedicated editor, and I really do respect your determination to improve Wikipedia. I do want to say again, though, that you may want to remember that WP:CIVIL is every bit as mandatory as the WP:MoS. I can see just looking over your talk page that I'm far from the only editor to raise this concern with you, and I hope you really will take it to heart. Good luck, and I hope that despite the yelling, the move conflict will somehow be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. --Dvyost 06:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but I've also had to vote to stick with the French name. When usage is reasonably split, and one name has official sanction, I think it makes sense to go with that. Anyway, thanks for alerting me, and sorry I didn't agree with you this time. john k 06:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know

That you are an admin. Sorry. Didn't mean to sound condescending. So we have (at least) 3 admins on the JK article. katefan0 and I are admins as well.

Rex is correct about ArbCom, re: reverting

Please read this. Please take note of "It appears that enforcement #7 (the penalty related to reverting articles) is in relation to remedy 4.1 (the prohibition on reverting articles). As such, it appears that enforcement 7 expired when 4.1 did. →Raul654 07:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654".

As I told Derex, I am not being a d*ck and I am trying to do my best to stay within both the letter and spirit of the rules. You do see that I did not just jump right in with edits in when John Kerry opened up for a while again today, yes? Frankly, I fail to see why you won't support the removal of "bandage". I've already agreed to drop "minor" if bandage is removed. Why is that not a good compromise? Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 08:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis unbanned

Just a heads up...you had participated in the arbitration case against JarlaxleArtemis. Linuxbeak has since unbanned him, saying that Jarlaxle had apologized. Just wanted to make sure you knew. Ral315 (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Just dont get it

Thanks for putting the article back. Here is what I wrote a colleague:

Reality Check

and Mr Billion takes it off, I puts it back, he removes the discussion, I puts the discussion back and keep putting the writer's article back. In his discussion he somewhat mildly alludes to sockpuppetry stuff.

Anyway a google search on "robinson" + "bishop" + "pope" is 907,000 articles.

Really, I am not devoted to the article, but to the defense of the original writer's judgement that it was newsworthy. It certainly made the NYTimes and Washington Post. And I really do get uppity when folks just delete stuff others do without discussion, and then appear to erase any discussion against their editorial defenses. And really uppity when they attack writers personally, which is mildly done in discussion by him.

Gosh, it just seems like such a straightforward report and to draw so much attention to deleting it and discussing it, geez, maybe I need to go down to the beach...Kyle Andrew Brown 01:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The vandalism tonight

Yeah I'm pretty sure it's Rex. User:Woohookitty/Vandals. I had the vandalism listed and then this person started to impersonate me...and THEN I had the page I just linked here so I could keep a record of what happened...bastard vandalised it and then threw a speedy tag on it and it was removed. So I had to PROTECT A SUBPAGE. No. Really. Anyway, User:Redwolf24 is checking into it for me. He's going to see if he can find out the IP that the person was using. If it was Rex, I'm pretty sure we can get him banned indefinitely. Had all of the earmarks of Rex, including contrib patrolling. And guess what? That vandals first edit (about 6:10 pm central) came just before Rex stopped editing. Well I tell ya one thing. I regretted my post today a bit...but if it means the end of Rex, I'll be glad I did it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• What on earth are you talking about?--Etyheryery 03:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404

This has been going on quite long enough. I've opened an arbcom case, and as you are party to this conflict, could you go make a statement there? I think Rex really needs to be dealt with. Being a third party myself, I'm not sure if I got every one, but I'm going to alert Mr. Tibbs, JamesMLane, Derex, Kizzle, and Woohookitty as well. I'd appreciate if you could alert anyone I've missed. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I started to do one of the statements but frankly, kizzle and jtdirl have been involved in this far longer than me. James M Lane too. If you guys need help, let me know, ok? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The George's prayer: hilarious. Post that somewhere that people will enjoy it. Derex @ 16:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian Paisley. Again

Please do not keep reverting the article to restore 'Dr.', as no concensus was gathered. If you want to use Dr. as the accepted address for him, please discuss and gather concensus for that on the talk page first. As is, there is no concensus to grant Paisley special treatment for political reasons. Wikipedia general useage is to give an 'also known as' when there are multiple sytles. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 12:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

your sig

Not sure, but I think it's screwing up the subsequent text, making it all superscript. Have you changed it recently? Derex @ 22:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Font tags

Oh, okay. Thanks for telling me. Various people's sigs seems to have been sliced in two and are spilling all over WP:ANI. I'll go post at the pump and let the bot take care of it.--Sean|Black 22:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE REMOVE THE FORMATING FROM YOUR SINGNATURE

It's driving me nuts, every page you sign turns yellow, Thank you--205.188.117.74 22:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

yeas, I would second that Sandpiper 22:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

See the amin noticeboard for an explanation of what's gong on. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Gerry Adams

Hi there

you might like to take a look at this, particularly the discussion I am having with Slimvirgin over the prominence due McDowell's remarks about Adams in the Army Council. Palmiro | Talk 23:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Your sig

A few minutes ago when someone added a comment to my talk page your sig made everything below it orange-boxed. Please close whatever tag you forgot in your signature as soon as possible. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Also see WP:HD. Apparently you rely on HTML tidy for properly functioning of your signature. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This is also a problem in Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion, Talk:Côte d'Ivoire, . Please correct your signature on these pages. --Bob 00:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop telling me there is something wrong with my signature. There isn't. As has happened before something has gone wrong all over Wikipedia with WP codes. It was probably, as before, caused by a faulty bot. It is up to the technical guys to find out what they did and undo it. My codes are the same as they have been for months. There is nothing I can do to correct the problem. It is a Wikipedia screw-up (again!) and only Wikipedia can fix it. A lot of codes seem to have screwed up at once all over the site.