User talk:Jtdirl/Archive 15

if you move the opening sup behind the opening font in you sig, it won't cause a problem while they're sorting the glitch out. cheers, Derex [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 01:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Your Sig

Hi Jtdirl. This is, as I'm sure you must by now be quite tired of hearing, about your signature. I'm posting this only because in your last few contribs (to the Talk pages of Knowledge Seeker, MacGyverMagic, Grcampbell, and yourself) you seem to indicate that you do not believe there are HTML problems with your customary signature. However, this does not appear to be the case. The following is the raw text of that signature:

[[User:Jtdirl|<span style="background-color: orange"><font ="center" color="#006666"><b>Fear<i>ÉIREANN</i></b></font></span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\<sup><font color=blue>[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup>

Please note that (a)the first span tag is never closed (b)the first font tag is never closed (c)the blue font color tag for your talk page link is never closed; it also lies outside the wiki double brackets enclosing your talk link (d)you have a black font color tag placed within the Talk page link that is never closed; presumably this is intended to affect the color of the date that will follow the sig, but you do not manually close it when signing (ie. you do not sign ~~~~</font>) (e) the sup tag that lies just outside the image is never closed (the closing sup tag is not nested properly (it's lying inside the wiki brackets) so it's not doing anything).

The following seems to address all the errors.

[[User:Jtdirl|<span style="background-color: orange"><font color="#006666">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</font></span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]<sup>[[user_talk:Jtdirl|<font color=blue>(caint)</font>]]</sup>

However, it will not superscript the date. Applying HTML to the date in the raw signature automatically renders it "invalid" in the preferences box of your account (that's a new feature the devs have coded). If you really must superscript the date, you will have to do it manually every time you place your signature.

If you test the above right now, while HTML Tidy is down, you will find that it works, whereas your old sig clearly doesn't. That the HTML in your customary sig was problematic is quite apparent, I think. However, I note that you claim there are other problems on WP right now, not just HTML Tidy related signature problems. That may well be the case, although I have not seen evidence of this save for one instance on one of my user subpages. Be that as it may, I do hope you'll correct your sig, which, regardless of other possible problems with WP code, is, indeed, problematic. Very kind regards encephalon 01:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess the guy who wrote up the code for me for me deserves a good spanking for getting it wrong. (I won't name him to spare his blushes among fellow WPians.) User talk:Jtdirl 01:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Add these to kill the orange

Stick these </span> after each orange block, and the color should go away--Hello fromSPACE 02:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Wikibreak

Thanks for the kind note. Yes, I'll return {there are too many nutcases for me to walk away}, but I've just got too much on my plate right now, and something has to go. The fact that Wikipedia will be here for a long time is a condolence, though. You'll probably see me around sometime soon. Too bad that templates don't work in real life, or some people would have to go around with {{Totallydisputed}} on their forehead. :) Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: signatures

Thanks for the message, Jtdirl, although if you look at the history you can see that the faulty signature was added when he signed his comment and was not later changed by a bot. You probably realize this by now, but it is not a Wikipedia-created problem so much as Wikipedia is no longer fixing all the bad HTML people put in their signatures (and also a couple other changes). For those using raw signatures with standard HTML, signatures still look the same, but for those who did not correctly construct the HTML, Wikipedia is no longer "proofreading" each page before displaying it, correcting the HTML errors it finds. The result is that it's passing your signature on to the viewer exactly as you coded it; it's no longer fixing it. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if you need any help fixing your signature. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I am surprised at you

Re your edits to Princess of Wales -- your snarky comments were a bit uncalled for from an experienced editor..

• I edited it to - "Princess of Wales is a courtesy title automatically given to the wife of the Prince of Wales".
• You edited it to "Princess of Wales is a courtesy title automatically possessed to the wife of the Prince of Wales"
• I amended it to "Princess of Wales is a courtesy title automatically given to the wife of the Prince of Wales, explaining I was changing your glaringly ungrammatical edit, i.e., "possessed to".
• You then amended it to "Princess of Wales is a courtesy title automatically possessed by the wife of the Prince of Wales". In the edit summary you said you were reverting and fixing an illinformed edit. PoWs are 'given' their title. It comes automatically with the marriage. Regardless that a title may be assumed automatically, you using the term "illinformed" but failing to acknowledge your desperately poor English usage doesn't really become you. Moriori 07:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Your edit was 100% wrong. A Princess of Wales is never given her title. That presumes a giver and there is no giver. It comes automatically on marriage by virtue of the marriage not by being given. Please don't add in terminology that it misleading. User talk:Jtdirl 19:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I have not tried to defend my edit. Despite your insult, I accepted what you said, otherwise I would have reverted. I repeat, your snarky remarks were uncalled for and your edit was ungrammatical, but while labeling someone else as ill-informed you totally ignored that your English usage was pre-school level. Incidentally. I edited the intro to this story because it needed knocking into shape. I was unaware you had a history of reverting this particular intro otherwise I wouldn't have touched it with a barge-pole.Moriori 19:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Paisley etc

Hi. I think you are getting somewhat the wrong idea of me. I am really not particularly on one side or the other. I just like to see fair play. Even you tried to buy in and make the article more NPOV, and your work has been reversed out too. To say that I am a fanatic is a bit strong. On what side?

On racism, I was annoyed, because responsible countries come out with strong documents which are published, and show the country in a bad light. The real villans get away with it, as they say nothing. As far as trolling is concerned, laziness and impatience was probably more accurate at the time, as I was hoping someone else would do the necessary research. Wallie 20:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The Nation Between Liberia And Ghana

(Hmm. It's a nifty title, for sure, but I don't think it'd solve the debate. Oh, well.)

There was an interesting point which was raised on Talk:Côte d'Ivoire earlier today - the voting section contains a header which tells people to vote to support moving the page to, er, Côte d'Ivoire. Some digging suggest this dates to an abortive page-move done after the debate was started, by Ed Poor, which is a bit weird.

I've left the note alone (I'm too tired to try and make it make sense in context), but I have expanded the section headings to make sure there's no ambiguity - "Support - have the article at Ivory Coast" and "Oppose - have the article at Côte d'Ivoire". A quick skim of the page suggests everyone who's already voted was in the right section anyway, which is a relief, but it seemed best to clarify matters before anyone voted without reading very closely!

Just thought I'd let you know, since you initiated the voting, and would no doubt be worried by seeing changes made without an obvious explanation. I've left Ed a note to tell him, as well, so hopefully he can do something about the introductory note. Thanks, Shimgray | talk | 02:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404's arby case has been accepted

Place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4/Evidence. The general arby page for him is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep. So let's get that evidence going! :) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence is a good guide on how the evidence pages tend to look. But yes, as I mentioned on the JK talk page, this is his 4th arby case in a little over a year. Time to end this. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected user page

Hi... I'm not criticising but why is your user page protected? No-one else's is. I don't think user pages should be unprotected either, but since all others are not allowed to be protected, I don't see why yours should be. Thanks, Christopher Denman 16:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Pedophile on current events

Hi, I wasn't saying "pedophile" is an orientation in the same way "straight" is. I was saying that it's a preference (pedophiles are attracted to children, likewise some people are attracted to women wearing leather, or whatever). One can't be convicted of having a preference; the linked article stated that his conviction was for possessing child pornography. It may be that he was a pedophile; it may be that he acquired that pornography to satisfy a secondary attraction to children. We can't know. Pakaran 19:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

re:Archives.

Your up early/late. Yoiu know it looks like you skiped a section on your archives. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

lol, mm, i miss custard cream, could go dor come McV my self. Yeah i thought it was weird with the archive, didn't know if you missed it or not. BTW i caught your comments you left on Chriscf (talk • contribs), intresting stuff. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh the joke is bigger then that page, thing of it is i dont find the joke to funny anymore. And the problem is just not their, the way i see it is that all of the policy needs to be rewrittn, and at the least reviewed. As for when we get them, i dont know, but it particaly our fault, if you get my drift. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI our welsh "friend" left a comment for you on my page, you can see here [1], i remved it fro the reason, if it not addressed to me i dont need iton my talk page, if he wanted to address you he should have msg you. What i find interesting is that on his userpage he states one thing, yet he acts, like somekinda uber-policy hawk, and does thinks total in disregard to his own philosphy. But that is common place around these parts, wouldnt you think. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 19:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Paisley image

Hi. I'm a little unclear about the message you left at my Talk page about your image concerns. I'm very concerned about image copyrights myself, but I think that there is some confusion about the image under discussion. I left a message at Talk:Ian Paisley about it, but the image that you reverted to is from a blog, with no source information and tagged as "Crown Copyright". Are you perhaps looking at a cached version of the image instead of the new image that User:Kpax uploaded over the old gov.uk one? My only interest in this is to get the matter sorted out. I assure you that I have no interest in using a flattering unfree image if an unflattering freer one is available. I do have an interest in not using one that is inaccurately tagged and from a dubious source. Jkelly 20:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for replacing the original image. That should clear everything up. Jkelly 20:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that the matter has been all sorted out, you may be ready for a good laugh. From your comments it seems to me that you never really looked at the image that came from the blog. It is here. User:Kpax's claim to be "updating" the image was, well... mischevious. If you were always seeing the old image, it must have been because it was stored in your browser cache. Jkelly 21:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is the image I (and presumably User:Wallie) was seeing. I hope that explains why I put up the DUP one, and why I suggested that you owe User:Wallie an apology for coming down on him for complaining about it. You were absolutely right to cut that text off of the Talk page, but User:Wallie may not, at the moment, be clear that you know what you are talking about copyright-wise after the confusion. I think that some patient explaining might go a long way to moving the entire conversation forward. Thanks again, Jkelly 21:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

hmmm any pictures of that muppet with a big swasticka on his forehead? I think that would be an excellent contribution to any paisley related article. :) --Chaosfeary 21:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Definitive no-style reference

I removed some styles from a list (List of Jewish jurists), per your advice on my talk page. However, I notice that the links in the templates (Styles2/3/4) you recommended to me do not really point to any clear guidance on the matter. Can you tell me the subpage or internal article that contains this agreement, should other editors ask for clarification? Thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Images/The Pope

Thank you for uploading "AssesOfEvil", it was a very good pun. But anyway, the assesofevil image was very good. BTW, the Pope is "da man".

I think our "friend" Rex is toast

Not sure if you are following the arby case against Rex, but the arbys are already voting on remedies and principles and only 2 of us have presented evidence. :) I get the feeling that they've decided enough is enough. Here is where they are voting. I went through the BigDaddy777 case and I thought that one went fast, but MAN. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Styles

I was not adding Styles to any articles, I was only changing "the Prince of Wales" to "The Prince of Wales" as per The Royal Family web site with regard to The Prince. MagicKnight 00:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct and I am very sorry. I did realize that and immediately reverted that back. Thanks :) MagicKnight 00:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I'll keep that in mind when I'm reverting vandalism. Happy editing! (and reverting)

Johann Wolfgang 00:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the list, it will certainly come in handy. : )

Royal Renaming

Now that I think about it, you are probably right about the Prince of Wales. And when I get time I probably will make a suggestion at the naming convention to differenciate between married and divorced Royal wives. Thanks Mac Domhnaill 01:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Juan Carlos I

Mr. Dirl, please cease to 'delete' everything that I have written in the Juan Carlos article and its 'discussion.' It is quite relevant and violate the "neutral" policy, for I was merely mentioning a theory. --Anglius 02:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Royal titles

I'm not sure what comment of mine prompted your lengthy message for me, but I can assure you there must be a misunderstanding somewhere because I have never intended to advocate the using of common names for monarchs. It'd help me if you explained what comment you are reacting to. Steve block talk 07:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

'Georgian Creed'...

You know you've got it all wrong... It's more like this:

AS IT WAS UNDER REAGAN

IS NOW

AND SHALL BE FOR A REALLY LONG TIME HEREAFTER

-172.135.80.247 14:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor

When Ed Poor acts capriciously, as he frequently does and as is obvious to many outside the Arbitration Committee, it has become difficult to support the side that he is promoting. Susvolans ⇔ 15:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Duke of Clarence

Of course there is no reason why Royalty and urban legends can't be linked from here and I don't understand the other user's actions. Especially as various other theories around the Duke are mentioned on that page. I was already keeping my eye on this page from Monday when I updated some parts following the Channel 4 programme. If see the link removed, I will re-instate it.

As for the royal consorts, perhaps moving all to the marital name is something to consider after the current proposal is actioned. Although I expect much resistance on Diana, Princess of Wales! Astrotrain 21:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

BlueShirts

Hello, Jtdirl, thanks for the notice, but I'm this BlueShirt, not this BlueShirt. My edit history pretty much sums up what I'm interested and frankly I've never heard of Irish blueshirts. BlueShirts 02:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Fieschi Letter

I have tried not to give a POV, but the variance between the letter and previously accepted history has to be explained. If you want sources, I have pasted the text of Fieschi letter below. The letter was discovered by a French archivist in the binding of an official register dated 1368 which had been the property of Gaucelm de Deaux, Bishop of Maguelonne, and was preserved in the Archives Departmentales d'Herault at Montpelier. It is still there today. The letter has been tested and is not a later forgery. Fieschi is a well known historical figure. He had several livings in England and knew the country though the letter shows a confusion between the rank of a knight and that of a lord. The following is a faithful translation from the original Latin. I suggest that you read the letter and then send me your comments about where the article is faulty. Could it be that your concern is that the letter differs from what you thought you knew?

In the name of the Lord, amen Those things that I have heard from the confession of your father I have written with my own hand, and afterwards I have taken care to be known to Your Highness.

First, he has said that, feeling England in subversion against him after the threat from your mother, he departed from his followers in the castle of the Earl Marshal by the sea, which is called Chepstow. Later, driven by fear, he boarded a barque together with Lord Hugh Ie Despenser and the Earl of Arundel and several others, and made his way by sea to Glamorgan on the coast. There he was captured, together with the said Lord Hugh and Master Robert Baldock, and they were taken by Lord Henry of Lancaster. And they led him to Kenilworth Castle, and the others were taken to various other places. And there, many people demanding it, he lost the crown. Subsequently, you were crowned at the feast of Candlemas next following. Finally, they sent him to the castle of Berkeley. Afterwards, the servant who was guarding him, after some little time, said to your father, 'Sire, Lord Thomas Gurney and Lord Simon Barford, knights, have come with the purpose of killing you. If it pleases you, I shall give you my clothes that you may better be able to escape.' Then, wearing the said clothes, at twilight, he went out of the prison. And when he had reached the last door without resistance, because he was not recognised, he found the porter sleeping, whom he quickly killed. And, having got the keys out of the door, he opened it and went out, with his keeper. The said knights who had come to kill him, seeing that he had thus fled, and fearing the indignation of the Queen, for fear of their lives, thought to put that aforesaid porter in a chest, his heart having been extracted and maliciously presented to the Queen, as if they were the heart and body of your father; and, as the body of the King, the said porter was buried at Gloucester. Afer he had escaped from the prison of the aforesaid castle, he was received at Corte Castle together with his companion, who had guarded him in prison, by Lord Thomas, the castellan of the said castle, without the knowledge of Lord John Maltravers, lord of the said Thomas, in which castle he remained secretly for a year and a half. Afterwards, hearing that the Earl of Kent, for maintaining that he was alive, had been beheaded, he took a ship with his said keeper and, with the consent and counsel of the said Thomas, who had received him, crossed into Ireland, where he remained for nine months. Afterwards, fearing lest he be recognised there, and having taken the habit of a hermit, he came back to England and proceeded to the port of Sandwich, and in the same habit crossed the sea to Sluys.

Afterwards, he turned his steps in Normandy, and from Normandy, as many do, crossing through Languedoc, he came to Avignon, where he gave a florin to a Papal servant and sent, by the same servant, a note to Pope John. The Pope summoned him and kept him secretly and honourably for more than fifteen days. Finally, after various deliberations, all things having been considered, and after receiving permission to depart, he went to Paris, and from Paris to Brabant, and from Brabant to Cologne, so that, out of devotion, he might see the [shrine of] the Three Kings. And, leaving Cologne, he crossed over Germany and headed for Milan in Lombardy.

In Milan, he entered a certain hermitage in the castle of Milasci [Melazzo], in which hermitage he remained for two and a half years; and because war overran the said castle, he moved to the castle of Cecima in another hermitage of the diocese of Pavia in Lombardy. And he remained in this last hermitage for two years or thereabouts, always the recluse, doing penance or praying God for you and other sinners. In testimony of which I have caused my seal to be affixed for the consideration of Your Highness.

Your Manuele de Fieschi, notary of the Lord Pope, your devoted servant.

JMcC 10:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Your rant on Category talk:Images with unknown source

Is Image:Boacg-thumbnail.jpg the image that you were refering to with "It couldn't have been more explicit on the page that it was given to WP. The categorisation was correct. The source stated. The only problem was that it was it was downloaded when a different set of commands were used."? --Gmaxwell 12:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair use images on userpage

Your user page is currently making use of a number of fair use images. Because of weakness of fair use world wide, we are unwilling the accept the additional liability of fair use images on user pages even when a good fair use argument can be made. Furthermore, at least one of the fail use images used on your user page is not used in any articles, this is a criteria for speedy deletion. I haven't removed the userpage because I'm worried that I'll be verbally assulted, but you should remove them... --Gmaxwell 12:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I see you removed the orphaned fair use tag from the Irish flag on your page, claiming that it was created by your friend for you two years ago. Unfortunatly, it seems there are dozens of copies of this same animation on the net which are bit identical yours excluding the background and are well over two years old. There is no way that this could be a coincidence. So it would appear that this image is copyvio, ... could we find you a freely licensed waving flag animation? --Gmaxwell 21:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Irish bias

While by all means you can contribute as much to the Irish-related articles as you wish (indeed, it is encouraged and gratefully received) please try to remain unbiased and stop thinking you have to constantly defend it. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Belated reply

Hi! I got a good laugh out of the "Georgian Creed!" Being a Florida resident, I ought to start accepting the faith and chantting it. In the past 25 years, voting against a Bush has put me squarely on the loosing side eight out of nine times here. The one candidate to beat a Bush in Florida was Lawton Chiles against Jeb back in 1994. His father, of course, lost two years earlier, but he won statewide, and carried my county handily. In 1994 I thought that we'd seen the last of them here. But as George W. would say, I should't "misunderestimate" the family.

BTW, sorry that I could not have been much help in the Ivory Coast dispute. Lately I can hardly even follow the troubles on my own watchlist. My latest headache on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. If you have time, please take a look. As many votes as possible are needed to keep the POV-pushers at bay. Anyway, great to see you around. 172 18:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

List of modern day dictators

Hello there. I understand your points, and I initially saw it that way too. But I put it to you that "dictator" is well defined term on which there is no controversy amongst historians of lexicographers.

At the top of the the talk page for the article, there are 8 similar definitions as to the meaning which all boil down to "absolute power"+"no rule of law". The points you raise are all things that dictators often are/do - but do not the define the term. Unlike evil/stupid, dictator has an objective definition not a subjective one.

I totally agree with you however, that adding a name to a list of dictators can be POV. At the same time I want to keep the list, as there are certainly at least some "dictators". I would be quite happy for a list of just a few names if that was the consensus - but, "dictator" is an objective term and removal of the entire list can't be justified simply because POV can be added - that applies to all articles. Deletion also implies, that "dictator" is subjective, which would mean that describing Hitler as one would fall under POV - something which Zoe agreed was true. This would of course contradict many (27,700) places in wiki where he and many others is so described.

I fully understand your position - I felt the same way initially - I hope you see what I am getting at.

Yours,

jucifer 19:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, regarding the Sinn Fein articles

Just to introduce myself, I was a member of Sinn Fein during that period, I was also later a delegate during the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis in 1986, and for a number of years both before and after then, as a political party Sinn Fein never used the Term provisional, the IRA did use for a short period between 1970 and early 1972.

Republican Sinn Fein that were formed in 1986 when they disagreed with the decision of the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis, are now trying to claim that Sinn Fein as led by G Adams became Provisional Sinn Fein in 1986, to try and promote themselves as they see it as the true Sinn Fein. Could you correct the address on the side panel of the article to '44 Parnell Square' as it is currently down as 'Parnell Place'.--Padraig3uk 21:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Taoisigh of the Republic of Ireland

Hi, Jt, I am currently considering submitting a rename request, but it has not aroused much interest. You input would be valued, see [2]. Djegan 20:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Blessed Virgin Mary

I'm about to restore the edit of mine you just reverted from the Blessed Virgin Mary without any explanation, but before I did so felt it only polite to post here what I just posted on the talkpage there:

It seems silly to me to have to bring this here, but since my initial, extremely minor copyedit to bring the opening sentence of the article into conformity with basic rules of English grammar was summarily reverted without even the courtesy of an explanation, I'm going to mention it here before restoring the edit.

At present the opening sentence begins with "The Blessed Virgin Mary" and then goes on to point out that she is also called "The Blessed Virgin". The use of the second name has two issues: capitalisation and boldface; it should actually appear as "the Blessed Virgin".

The is not part of her name. This is pretty obviously displayed within the very sentence we're talking about, not to mention in the article's title. Because The is not part of her name, it is not included in the article's title and is not boldfaced at the beginning of the opening sentence ("The Blessed Virgin Mary", where it's only even capitalised because it's the first word of the sentence). Nor is it capitalised at any other point in the article when she is referred to by a name or title preceded by a definite article ("the Virgin Mary" or "the Blessed Virgin").

I'd also point out that, if it was part of her name, it would be included in direct address. (Would a child pray, "If you help me with this, Blessed Virgin, I'll never ask you for anything again", or would they pray, "If you help me with this, The Blessed Virgin, I'll never ask you for anything again"?)

I'm going to restore my original edit now, as well as post what I've written here to User:Jtdirl's talkpage, since they're the one who reverted me in the first place. I can't possibly imagine what argument anyone could bring against the edit, but if they have one, I implore them to bring it here, rather than summarily reverting the edit.

Binabik80 21:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk page

Surely 3RR does not apply here as nearly all of the edits were not reverts but simply many minor changes? As per the talk page people were pretty much in consensus and there wasn't really "edit warring", so...

Also why is my talk page protected so I cannot reply to your message there? It doesn't seem that I have broken any rules, so I'm confused... --Chaosfeary 23:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Irish Times Image

It's working for me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IrishTimesFrontPage.jpg I replaced the photo with a better scan taken from a PDF on their website, I hope it's okay… Dkie 00:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Categorisation of protected template

I'm categorising user warning templates into Category:User warning templates for the Wikiproject on User Warnings, but you seem to have protected Template:Test. Would you mind adding the following code? It must be on the same line, since new lines break lists. Thanks.

<noinclude>[[Category:User warning templates]]</noinclude>

// Pathoschild 03:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Honourific Appointments

You messeged me recently about wikipedia policy regarding the use of titles in wikipedia article. Could you tell me where to find this policy? Does it apply, for example, to Canadian Privy Councilors who have The Honourable become part of their name ? Michael Drew 06:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Provisional Irish Republican Army

Seems like Ruy Lopez (talk • contribs) is up to his old tricks again, in which he removes any mention of terriost from the introduction of an artcile no matter what the context is. Any thoughts? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 20:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

User 69.181.135.2

I noticed you blocked this user for posting phone numbers and the like. What should we do about the number in the edit summary? (Were you aware of the case a little while ago involving Jimbo and Ashida Kim?) Should this be deleted from the history? Or something else? -Mysekurity 00:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Fieschi letter

I have made a changes to the article on Edward II as requested and provided you with chapter and verse. Would you feel happy to remove the accuracy tag now? JMcC 11:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Canada

The long-established precedent in Canada is that if a government is defeated more than six months after the previous election a new election is called. There is no indication that this precedent will be broken, particularly as the opposition leader has not claimed he can win the support of the House and no other opposition parties have said they would support a government led by the leader of the opposition. Nevertheless, saying Canada "faces an election" is different than saying there "will be an election" - it's just less equivocal than saying the country "may face an election". Homey 14:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Now we're getting into semantics. "to face" something does not mean something will come to pass. There is an element of uncertainty in the statement. Regardless, all the Canadian press as well as the CBC, as well as numerous academics turned commentators, are saying parliament will be dissolved and there will be an election. If you wish to make a complaint to the Press Council and the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission I will follow your progress with interest. Homey 14:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"It applies encyclopædic standards."

How do you reconcile that with your belief that the death of a former footballer belongs in ITN?Homey 16:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I never said a former footballer belonged on ITN. George Best was not just any former footballer. He was regarded as a sporting icon of the 1960s, one of the finest footballs in the history of the sport, and his long battle with alcoholism had been followed by millions worldwide for years. He is of such importance that his funeral is being held in a parliament building, plans are being made to rename an airport in his honour and the police have asked that the date when his body is flown home be changed for fear that the crowds turning out would criple and entire city traffic system. Someone with that impact is not simply some former footballer. FearÉIREANN 16:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

So much for "ITN is not a news box and as everyone regularly points out does not apply news standards." Homey 16:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps if you didn't make exceptions for personal heroes your handing down of policy would have more credibility? Perhaps as well you should try to become more familiar with Canadian constitutional practice rather than make proclamations from across the ocean based on a British template? You might then be aware that the Governor General actually had no choice in the question of whether to grant a dissolution in this particular case as she is bound by precedent. If the defeat had occured sooner and had someone put themselves forward as being able to form a government you would have a point but as neither of that was the case you're doing little more than showing your ignorance of Canadian constitutional practice.Homey 17:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Your arrogance is astounding. Please consult some Canadian constitutional scholars.Homey 17:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The theoretical possibility of the Governor General refusing dissolution in this case was so minute as to not merit mention in a nine word headline. In any case, the point is moot as the dissolution has now been granted.Homey 18:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: sig

Certainly! Is there any example of your old sig you can show me? Is the one earlier on my talk page how you'd like to have it? — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you try putting the following text as your signature, and checking "raw signatures? [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup> If it doesn't work, show me what the signature looks like. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk archives

Hi. I notice your talk pages are at User_talk:Jtdirl (Archive 14), etc; I think they might be better placed at User_talk:Jtdirl/Archive 14, or otherwise using the subpage feature (which is only deactivated and deprecated in the article space). As things stand, if someone created an account called Jtdirl (Archive 14), they'd then have one of your archives as their talk page. Now, admittedly this is very unlikely to happen unless someone is "playing the cute hoo'er", but technically, those archives aren't in your user space, but in no-one's (or a non-existent someone's, as it were). BTW, I'm assuming the redlink to archive 13 is deliberate? Alai 04:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:User AmE-0

RE: The "AmE-0" on your page, you may be interested in adding Template:User AmE-0 or Category:User_AmE-0 to your user page, just letting you know about their existence in case you're interested. --Chaosfeary 12:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced

See my replies at User talk:Wangi and User talk:Dbachmann (copied below). This is the result of my discussions with Jimbo and Danny. They are not the final say, of course.

The statements at {{unsourced}} are only suggestions. My experience is that most people put the tag at the top of the article. It doesn't really make sense to put it at the bottom. Something as vital to Wikipedia as sourcing articles shouldn't be dumped to the bottom of the page. Also, many articles, such as cities and countries, only have external links going to maps of area. These are not sources. So it can't be strictly true that external links = sources. We should be responsible for explaining where our content came from, not simply telling people where they can go to find trusted information. This isn't a link farm.

Just because something is done in large volumes (such as putting {{unsourced}} on several pages) doesn't mean it is wrong. External links are not sources. Many articles simply have links to maps or "official sites". We are not a link farm, so we should be responsible for explaining where our content came from, rather than simply telling people where they can go to find trusted information. Also, this isn't just my opinion. I'm doing this as a result of lengthy discussions I've had over the past couple days with Jimbo and Danny on #wikimedia. While you don't have to agree with them, I do. I've explained to them what I am doing and they are fine with it. Also, I am only one person. It is much easier for one person to coordinate the efforts of several people, the people who wrote their respective articles, and thus know where their writing came from. One person shouldn't be expected to cover a broad array of topics that he might know nothing about. For examples of my sourcing, see Norman Borlaug and Great Lakes Storm of 1913. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 15:34

• Also, I don't see how adding an unsourced template causes edit wars. People may get angry, but people get angry about a lot of things. WP:CITE clearly says our articles should have sources. If you disagree, please change the policy. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 15:40
• Some of the articles I've added the template to have subsequently been updated with References, such as Religion, so I tend to disagree with this "backlash" that is supposed to occur. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 15:44
  • There has been a long running discussion/poll at Template talk:Unreferenced over these issues, perhaps this discussion should be moved there. - SimonP 16:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Chit chat

OK, all utterly irrelevant, but a couple notes I've been meaning to leave you:

1. I've told the Bush/Gorbachev/Paisley joke to several people because I think it's brilliant. All my American friends/family (who are otherwise politically informed and smart). Unfortunately, they just say, "um, who's Paisley again?" Shameful.
2. I'm vaguely curious where you would place on my friendly editor's silly survey: User:Karmafist/Wikipedians' Political Perspectives
3. I'm really intringued by the question of whether you actually are or are not notable article subject Jim Duffy (author), whom some editors seems to suppose you to be (and superficial facts certainly match). You've asked not to be listed as such a notable wikipedian; but where I've seen it, it's seemed coyly stated (not unambivalently: "I am a distinct human being from Mr. Duffy"; but more "I have not stated that I am Jim Duffy"). Maybe coy has a purpose.
4. How can you not like Guinness stout? It's a fine product, and I say that without a hint of ethnic/national skew. The only thing better—assuming non-tea tottling—is Brazillian Xingu, being as it's possibly even darker.

Peace. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

hi their

Hi their, you changed Template:GovernmentofIreland and added a Minister for Lands (Ireland), I am not sure which minister this is or what era, is it the Minister for Lands & Agriculture of 1924 or a different office?

Regarding the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland debate of recent someone mentioned a formal policy on the matter may simplify things - thus a simple proceedural matter of speedy rename (or citation of official policy) instead of a formal vote and all the trouble with convincing people of the reality, such votes are simply divisive. This may warrant serious consideration although it would be a high risk strategy. Djegan 19:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Template:Vblock

The courier text doesn't look "thoroughly hideous" in my browser (IE6.0). In fact, it stands out clearly as text which is entered verbatim. Can you please take a screenshot of how it looks with your setup, so I can see why you think it is so thoroughly hideous? Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, then can you see if you can find a monospaced font that looks reasonable on Firefox, Camino and Opera? Most of the users I block have no idea how to use templates, so I want the instructions on Vblock to be as clear and easy to follow as possible. Most of them probably use IE, but I'd like to find something that looks good on all major browsers. Thank you! Owen× ☎ 21:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it from forcing a font to using the <code> attribute, which should work ok on most browsers. Please take a look and let me know if this still makes you throw up... Thanks! Owen× ☎ 22:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

vprotecting GWBush

THANK YOU!!! Thanks for vprotecting the GWBush article. It was getting taxing to constantly revert it every min. Thanks! --LifeStar 20:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

User:82.81.3.87

Did you warn them before or after they hit my page? Jkelly 02:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the user will not be missed. I suspect that you got User:Iopq at the same time, since it was likely that user's IP. Jkelly 02:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What??

Your allegations are baseless.

I do not have a "long history" of anything. If you had bothered to check the edits list, you would have realised this.

I never indulge in "Deliberate doctoring of articles to supress evidence" and the the so called unsourced claims are quite common knowledge, at least they are to anyone that has studied history to any extent. I actually find it others who try to suppress the historical evidence for their own particular bigoted reasons.

Instead of making wild an unfounded allegations which you clearly like accusing others of doing, you should, if you disagree, like most civilised people provide some evidence to the contrary.

You seem to have set yourself up as judge and executioner - what a glorious crusade!

Your behaviour has been noted, as has your attempt to hide the fact that you were warned. The warning has been reinstated and the page protected. If you vandalise any more articles with POV religious rants you are out of here, mate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know who you are - you clearly don't like dealing with the facts. As I said before (which you deleted) I can't see why you have so much problem accepting the simple fact that "Historically protestants held that the official title of the Pope adds up to 666". If you want historical evidence I have no problem presenting it. Would you accept the statement then? I find it bizzare that you can make unilateral, uninformed decisions about who gets to write what yet nobody can question anything you do.

The issue has been researched to death on WP. The evidence is unambiguous. If you want to believe potty conspiracy theories that are demonstrably untrue, go ahead. But you are not doctoring articles to promote your POV by taking facts out of articles, slipping POVs into articles, changing captions, turning sentences around to suggest the exact opposite of what they actually say. The issue is closed. You vandalise. You are blocked. It is that straight forward. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Block away - whether it is my POV or not is irrelevant - it is historical fact. But you clearly don't want me or anyone else to present the ample evidence. I'm not sure what WP refers to, so I can't comment on the 'research' there. As for your allegations against me - you can say what you like, it does not alter the facts. Wikipedia is clearly just a forum for the POV's of people like yourself to be presented to the exclusion of other views which may be just as valid. In other days you would probably accuse me of being a heretic and have me burnt... sigh.

All white engaging in papal orgies, with black cats, and while murdering Jewish babies so that their bones can be made into hosts no doubt. If you want to live in a diluded world of paranoid 16th century religion that is your right. But Wikipedia follows objective factual criteria, not religious fantasy much less religious paranoia in article writing. If you want to write paranoid ramblings and religious rants, go back to the sixteenth century. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia learn the difference between fantasy, paranoia and reality. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 14:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Working perfectly

Excellent! Glad I could be of service! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Crown of Napoleon

Sorry about the spell edit. I didn't realize that this was the UK spelling. I once read it was archaic, but perhaps only in American English. I checked this word in a spell checker with UK English and it marked it as mispelled. I know the spell checkers aren't fool proof.--Adam 16:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC) Looks like I started an inadvertant edit war. Do you want to field this one? Someone reverted your changes.--Adam 20:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Double vote

I applaud your honesty in noticing and removing the extra vote I gave you. --RoySmith 21:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Gallian

Thank you for the information about the vandal Gallian. However, I am not an admin so I cannot ban him. I will, however, continue to watch the article and try to revert it ASAP. Olorin28 02:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I didn't see anything wrong in there contributions when I welcomed them, but thank you for telling me, I'll wait a little longer before welcoming new users to see if they are just vandal accounts.

Johann Wolfgang 02:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Iopq

Hi. I mentioned you in my summary at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Iopq. I am hoping that you will review the RfC, and add any feedback you think is appropriate. Thanks. Jkelly 03:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Boycott Campaign

I have addressed your concerns as best as possible. Let me know if you will now change your mind about deleting my personal subpage User:JuanMuslim/Wikipedia Boycott Campaign. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Thank you.--JuanMuslim ^1m 06:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

References

Sorry, but "everyone else" is not against me. Of the people who were against what I was doing, the majority were against my specifically placing it at the top of pages, going against what it says at {{unreferenced}}. In accordance with their concerns, I have stopped this activity. Yet others were against my placing it on pages that had external links. In accordance with their concerns, I have stopped that as well. Instead, I have created custom block of text, shown at the top of User:Brian0918/Sandbox, which will go at the bottom of the page, exactly in accordance with the guidelines at {{Unreferenced}}. Since I have started following these guidelines, you are the only who has complained. As for reverting my edits, there must be something more productive that you could for the encyclopedia. If you would like to discuss it further, let me know. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 02:46