User talk:Jtdirl/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Mediation Request[edit]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vicarius Filii Dei, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Some sockpuppets (Full disclosure)[edit]

I created a few "impostor" accounts of your signature since noone else had and I suspect it's more vulnerable then your actuall usrname. I haven't done anything with them and and waiting for them to be blocked as impostors. 68.39.174.238 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

who are you[edit]

I was looking for informatiom on the red fox. How did you get my address.

Wikibreak[edit]

Enjoy your break. Hope you come back soon. :) Prsgoddess187 19:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page is usually so fascinating. I have no idea what I'll do with my free Wikipedia time any more. Hurry back! astiqueparervoir 01:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales[edit]

I wouldn't like to see her moved. She wasn't really a consort -- the title "Diana, Princess of Wales", is a made-up one for her unique circumstances, ie. a divorced former consort. A further complication is that she was "Lady Diana Spencer" from birth, so it would be quaint to put her at plain "Diana Spencer", but the highest title she ever held was not "Lady". Therefore I would vote to keep the article where it is (which is where I originally put it, for the reasons I've just stated).

Sorry, my mistake, she wasn't "Lady" from birth, but I think the point still stands. Deb 20:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that it should be at "Diana Spencer" as a deceased royal consort. We could turn 'Diana, PoW" and "Princess Diana" into redirects. Would it be possible to list her as Honourable Diana Spencer as that is the title she was born with? I would support a move to her maiden name, let me know when and where. Prsgoddess187 02:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
When raised previously, I was for keeping her where she is now. However as I have made many moves to pre-marital titles myself since then, it would be logical for me to support a move to Diana Spencer. She has been dead for over 8 years now, and apart from the Daily Express, she isn't really in the public eye any more. Astrotrain 19:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

howdy[edit]

I hear you loud and clear, i'm not into that sort of thing. Just writing articles and editing them. By the rules, always by the rules.Jonah Ayers 22:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Popes and antipopes revisited[edit]

Hi, Jtdirl. I'm just going to bed now, so this is a very quick note to alert you to discussion going on here. (Scroll down to "What happened with the anti-pope stubs? What happens now?") I wasn't happy with the original deletion, but I am happy now. Hope you are as well, but thought I should let you know about it anyway. Slán. AnnH (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ingrid of Sweden[edit]

Hello. I realize that I erred when changing "Princess Ingrid of Sweden" to "Queen Ingrid of Denmark" without removing the title as I should have. But shouldn't she be known as "Ingrid of Denmark", since Ingrid's highest ranking and ranking title was as queen consort (and later queen mother) of Denmark? Regards. — JonRoma 05:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

AOL problems when blocking vandals and trolls.[edit]

On a Wiki break and still blocking people? Please be aware that when you are fighting vandals who use AOL, you also end up blocking other users. This has been an ongoing problem for me. For a history, please see my use page User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection. This problem has serious implications for building the encylopedia -- for example, my watch list has a lot of vandalism tonight, and I am not the only user impacted. Please release the block as soon as possible. Relevant information below. WBardwin 06:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your IP address is 207.200.116.14. Please include this address, along with your username (if you are a registered user), in any queries you make. Your user name or IP address has been blocked by User:Jtdirl. The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Jmk56". The reason given for Jmk56's block is: "legal threat".
None the less -- the block keeps me from monitoring my watch list, removing vandalism and doing contstructive editing. And your vandal will simply move on to the next IP number. Productive software, huh. Oh, well. Thanks for your efforts. Good night to all. WBardwin 06:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I read for about an hour and loaded the dishwasher. Your fifteen minute block is still in effect. I would appreciate it if you could revert back to my last edit on Elizabeth Cady Stanton at least -- two successive vandals. Hopefully, I'll be able to edit over the weekend. Best wishes and good luck on your problem editor. However, I don't think there is anything actionable about threatening legal action. WBardwin 08:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor wiki syntax fix (or page deletion) requested[edit]

Hi Jtdirl,

As the person responsible for Franz Josef of Austria/temp style test, can I please ask that you either change this line of that article from this:

When World War I erupted, Austria-Hungary fought in alliance with Germany, but the [[Austro-Hungarian Army
]] proved ill-prepared and ill-equipped.

To this (i.e. no linebreak):

When World War I erupted, Austria-Hungary fought in alliance with Germany, but the [[Austro-Hungarian Army]] proved ill-prepared and ill-equipped.

Alternatively, can you please add a {{db|page was a test that is no longer required}} to the top of the page?

Reason for this is that it has the above minor wiki syntax error, but the page has been locked (thus preventing that error from being fixed), so either of the above changes will get it off of the radar for the Wiki Syntax project.

-- All the best, Nickj (t) 11:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

British and Irish Lions[edit]

It is not accurate to say that the IRFU are dissociating themselves with the term 'Home Nations'. They use it on their home page to refer to themselves, it is in the archive of past discussions on the talk page.GordyB 13:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Aidan Work[edit]

Hi. I saw that you blocked him indefinetly, despite the fact that he was blocked for 31 hours for his last edits (on january 19th). Although I'm not going to ask you to lift the block, or to have any other admin do the same, I feel that it might have been a bit harsh to block him twice for the same vandalism. Although he probably won't stop his povpushing or personal attacks, I feel that it would have been fair to wait until he commits more personal attacks/vandalism, and then block him. As he don't seem to respond on any attempts to contact him on his talkpage, I've emailed him in an attempt to see if anything can be done to resolve the situation, although I feel this is highly unlikely to succeed. Bjelleklang - talk 14:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your block of Aidan Work[edit]

Thanks for letting me know. I have no objection to your block. I was pretty close to doing it myself, but I thought maybe I could get through to him. (Sigh.) I just don't understand how someone could be around here for that long and still be so wrong about what Wikipedia is about. FreplySpang (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Lions[edit]

Please keep an eye on the Brit Lions page, the imperialist types are all over it.--MacRusgail 20:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting to England[edit]

Yes, the redirect to England "vandal" is back, here to teach you to STOP undoing my redirects.Jedneck 22:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism continues[edit]

I don't know if you taken a look at the user from 70.182.219.158, but this user has been vandalizing articles, wikistalking, vandalizing talk pages, and make libelous accusations for months. Just look at the contribs page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=70.182.219.158 Corax 23:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

British monarch infobox[edit]

I've designed an infobox template for British monarchs based on a combination of the hand-coded ones already in place (see for example Victoria of the United Kingdom) and Template:Infobox PM. The template code is located at User:Mackensen/Infobox UK Royal, while an example of what it would produce is at User:Mackensen/PeerBox. I would appreciate any input you might have. Mackensen (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


von leading to an edit war[edit]

You seem to be involved with matters of aristocracy and royalty, so I'll give it a stretch and ask you this: What is your stance on the use of von with English titles? E.g. Prince Alfred von Auersperg. A user called Thesaunterer is editing it to Prince Alfred von Auersperg saying that it is the proper title on Sunny von Bülow. The proper title is Prince Alfred of Auersperg or Alfred Prinz von Auersperg, not a mix of both. I say the misuse is analagous to the use of "Princess Diana" as a back up. However, said user keeps on editing it back. I *can* understand Alfred von Auersperg, but when used in conjunction with the full title and style, I have it back to His Serene Highness Prince Alfred of Auersperg. It is not merely a surname in that essence. I am not well-versed in dealing with such users as I've only encountered people like them once before. Thanks. Charles 18:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL[edit]

That Merkey nut, aka permanently banned abuser, stalker and all round nutcase User:Gadugi, now has named me as part of his smear campaign on his website. According to him

This individual is an internet stalker and cyber-terrorist who resides in The Country of Ireland. He is an Admin and editor of Wikipedia, and who uses Wikipedia to advocate the overthrow of the US Government and the removal from office of promient US Politicians. He posts hate speech directed against the leaders of the United States. He is a sexual deviant associated with the writings of NAMBLA (North America Man/Boy Love Association), an organization that advocates the rape of young boys, and who stalks Wikipedia and routinely violates the Constitutional Rights of United States Citizens. He is a columnist and writer for various right wing Irish Publications.

Cyper-terrorist? An "advocate the overthrow of the US Government and the removal from office of promient (sic) US Politicians"? That is hilarious. As for that NAMBLA rubbish — mindboggling. All I did was stop him posting propaganda and revert vandalism!!! Zeech. The nutcases you find on the net. The only thing true in the above is that I am an "Admin and editor of Wikipedia and Irish!!! LOL FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 00:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

From all American editors, to all Irish editors: Please stop violating the Constitutional Rights of United States Citizens, particularly our sacred Third Amendment rights. It's against the law to advocate to remove any U.S. politicians now in power, and we know what country you live in. We've had enough and if you don't stop we'll have to form a posse comitatus, and drive right over and whup your asses. So there. -Will Beback 12:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Since the USA's leaders routinely advocate (and instigate) the overthrowing of other governments, including democratically elected ones, I think we can take that one with a pinch of salt! 83.70.72.217 08:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Most Noble[edit]

For anyone interested in defining future policy on this subject in a definitive way I have instigated a debate here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#The Most Noble Giano | talk 10:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Jmk56[edit]

I'm inclined to unblock this editor, as he has rescinded his legal threat on my talk page. Thoughts? I try not to unblock editors other admins have blocked without asking first. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah well. I decided to unblock him rather than wait. Hopefully he'll behave. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Rosario again[edit]

Hi! Look, i dont know if you're around, but if you are... Vote here please: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). This guy is really trying to make fun of us all. By the way, just out of curiosity: what does the Queen has written in her passport: HM The Queen, or her name? Cheers and all the best, muriel@pt 13:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Does the Queen even need a passport? I would think her retinue would be sufficient for anyone who might be confused as to who she is... astiqueparervoir 13:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your npoving of pretender article. I try so hard not to delete this bs entirely, so I made just the bare basic for minimum decency of the article. Of course the usual defender of this virtualy unknown "pretender" will strike back. I guess its either him (the pretender) or someone very close. Or may be its just a joke. --BBird 22:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there an admin in the house[edit]

The article €2 commemorative coins is under concerted attack. Can it be protected? --Red King 00:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Problem dealt with. --Red King 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:LouisXIV_crown.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:LouisXIV_crown.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

Insertion of photos[edit]

Could I enlist your assistance in inserting photos in an assortment of articles having to do with the District of Assiniboia (pre-1905) and the province of Saskatchewan (post 1905)? The photos are on the University of Saskatchewan library website [1] and are long past their copyright date. The articles...well, I can tell you and you can take me by the hand, or you can just instruct me and I can take it from there. At present, alas, I don't have the editing skills necessary to insert them in their proper places. I ask you because you have intervened in the past in respect of certain of my offerings but with a degree of common courtesy that appears, alas, often to be somewhat lacking. Kind regards. Masalai 08:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you asked[edit]

Orca 2.jpg

I figure if I could give Aaron a trout, I can do no less in your case... Administer as necessary. Hope that helps! ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul Martin[edit]

Paul Martin is nolonger PM as of Jan 24. 2006 [2]Michaelm

Provisional IRA[edit]

Hi, Could you help me out on the Provisional IRA page? Some anonymous user keeps adding information that the IRA was funded and armed by the USSR, the Irish American mob and the Russian mafia. On top of that, he keeps deleting references to the Shankill bomb of 1993. He also keeps adding misleading information on the extent of the IRA's campaign against loyalists adn the British army, Eg, "an expert assasination campaign forced the loyalist to call a ceasfire", as well as mixing up time periods, dates and facts. Thanks, Jdorney 12:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Manual of Style change[edit]

I'd be interested in any comments that you might have on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Proposed change to Honorific prefixes. Best, Mackensen (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

3 revert rule[edit]

Hi Jtdirl,

Could you please refrain from reverting the page again? I've just blocked Anonymous editor for violating the 3RR and you're on your 3rd revert already... (got to be impartial here ;-) -- ChrisO 19:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey what did you mean by amerocentrism? It was a story about Poland. :-) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sean T. O'Kelly[edit]

I am enquiring, why did you remove the fact tag from the sentence (but had been forced out in 1915 after the IRB infiltrated the League). This claim is put as fact without any reference. The article's sources do not mention this at all.

I also would like your thoughts on just removing the phase as it is irrelevant to the article. If anybody can back it up, they can place it in Douglas Hyde's article. ant_ie 23:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:129.118.7.146[edit]

Hi. I'm curious about your block of this user. First you gave him a warning on his talk page, than a few minutes later, you went back and blocked him. What made you change your mind? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Irish community in Britain Blatant POV[edit]

Hi, Could you help cleaning up the Irish community in Britain article? Especially the Scotland section, as there is some very bad POV in it, thanks. Superdude99 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates of birth and death[edit]

Jtdirl said: Please don't add in locations of birth and death in the opening brackets for dates of birth and death. That is not the agreed format and everywhere they are added in they will simply have to be taken out. The agreed format to be used is (<date month> <year>–<date month year) or mm dd if necessary, for someone who is dead, and (born <ddmm> <year>) for someone who is alive. Other information is not but in that set of brackets.

This is something I stopped doing a long while ago. I apologize if I have inadvertently done this, and thank you for catching it. Bobo. 04:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Nation[edit]

I don't expect everyone to agree with me all the time, but it's discouraging that someone with your level of experience is pursuing the disagreement in so heavy-handed a fashion.

Before your initial move, The Nation was the location of the article about the U.S. periodical. I suggested that we restore that status quo ante, following which you could present and argue for your proposed change at Wikipedia:Requested moves. You haven't adopted that method. You also haven't explained why you think incessant unilateral reverting is a preferable procedure. In fact, you generally haven't seen fit to discuss the issue on the talk page at all, except when someone on the other side undoes your disputed move. You certainly give the appearance that you hope to prevail through sheer persistence rather than through rational discussion.

In the interest of the civil resolution of disputes, I request that you restore the article to its prior location. You can then list it on WP:RM, a page that exists for the precise purpose of handling such issues. JamesMLane t c 05:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You should be ashamed[edit]

I thought better of you in times past. Participating in the Wikipedia "Counter Vandalism Unit". I can't think of anything better designed to encourage childish trolling than that. I would have thought you'd be fighting against it, not encouraging it. --The Cunctator 07:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Argh, I hate when they're reference-less. El_C 08:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
All this seems to be right now is a personal attack. If this has merit (which I doubt) then let us know what is going on. Prsgoddess187 12:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What has been going on is simple. Where a term has an internationally understood meaning it obviously has an entitlement to have the page of that name, with other localised meanings related to a disambigulation page, eg the French capital at Paris, the Italian capital at Rome, etc. In the case of The Nation there is no one international meaning. Many states have or have had national publications of that name, some of them very famous. No one publication is known widely outside its own region; in fact many are largely unknown outside their own country. The Nation was created as a disambigulation page to deal with all publications. However some US users unilaterally changed that to make the main page devoted to their local publication and shunted all the other publications to another disambigulation page. Then links were made to their publication and they even claimed that their publication as the biggest, even though it is largely unknown outside the US and even relatively unknown in much of the US, was of course entitled to own the main page and more important than the the newspaper of the same name in Pakistan, the paper of the same name in Thailand, the historic UK publication of the same name, the famous nineteenth century Irish newspaper of that name, and large numbers of other publications of that name, all of whom are being added one by one by international users.

All I did was return The Nation to being a link to the disamb page. I sought to move some of the links to that page from US articles directly to the US page. However that is unacceptable to some US users who insist that their original unilateral move must be the way the page is, and their publication is more important and the meaning of the name more people on the planet think of than any other. Try telling that to the tens of millions internationally who think of other publications, or the billions (inclusions hundreds of millions in the US) who have never heard of the US publication. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 21:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Your explanation makes sense to me. If the title of The Nation is used by more than one publication, and each is INTERNATIONALLY no more well known that the other, it should link to a disambiguation page. Gotta stand behind you on this one. Well done.  :) Prsgoddess187 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
As you may have seem, I too support the move of The Nation to an disambiguation page and liked what you wrote to justify your vote. We need some more supporters to bring a concensus for the disambiguation viewpoint. I hope that view prevails as too often the volume of US-centric veiws can dominate too often. ww2censor 04:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your use of language on Talk:George W. Bush[edit]

Hi, while I take your point that you wish I would engage in anti-vandalism activity on the George W. Bush article, you way of expressing that opinion is extremely uncivil and in my opinion amounts to a personal attack. To wit:

  • Oh Gawd, has Tony started this crap again? How many times must users say no before he realises that no means no. This page is not his personal plaything to try experiments
  • Frankly Tony's antics here, where he unprotects the page and then disappears and leaves it to others to deal with the aftermath of his experiments, are getting to be a right pain in the butt.
  • Every time Tony plays his unprotection games other have to pick the pieces and undo the mess his gaming creates

These attacks are unacceptable. Please stop.

The article does not belong to either of us; neither of us is obliged to remove vandalism from it. I considered whether I should remove vandalism during the periods of unprotection, but decided that the risk that my participation would skew the figures would be too great, and it was better just to take my hands off the switch and permit events to unfold without influence from me.

On your belief that this is just one guy in favor of unprotecting regularly and not listening to many others telling him to stop, this is incorrect. You and User:Brian0918 are asking me to stop. User:MONGO, User:Lord Voldemort, and others have expressed support for regular unprotection. In discussions on 7 January, User:Flcelloguy, User:kizzle, User:Splash, User:Greg Asche, User:Antandrus, and (with reservations) User:Voice of All all expressed support for unprotecting the article now and then to test the water. --Tony Sidaway 12:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Jp1.jpg[edit]

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jp1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. CLW 12:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Irish Republican Army - moved despite no-consensus ruling[edit]

LP moved Irish Republican Army to Irish Republican Army (1917-1922) despite a clear ruling on 25/12/2005 to the effect that there was no consensus for such a move. Could you put on your Admin hat and revert the vandalism, please? --Red King 00:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Formatting userboxes[edit]

Hi, Jtdirl. I know you're good at formatting templates and boxes, etc., and I wondered if you'd be able to help me. I'm not completely happy with the linguist userbox on my userpage. I generally steal my userboxes from elsewhere, and then delete the words that are there and add my own words. I couldn't think of a suitable image to have in the part on the left, so I thought I'd write the first syllable, "ling" in phonetic script:

'''['{{IPA|l}}{{IPA|ɪ}}{{IPA|ŋ}}]'''

which comes out as: ['lɪŋ] (which is what I want).

I tried putting that into the userbox, and checked it with preview, and it messed up the boxes completely. So now I've gone back to using a standard "i" in the userbox, in between "l" and "ŋ". Any ideas? Thanks. AnnH (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Pinfo templates[edit]

Hi! I just discovered the {{Pinfo4}} and {{Pinfo5}} templates, and I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your creating them. As someone who's faced a lot of harassment on Wikipedia, I've become very aware of the difficulties we have making sure the harassment policy is enforced and it's great to see steps being taken in the right direction. Thanks. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 05:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Diffuse community[edit]

You stated on WP:AN:

  • "As WP gets bigger it becomes less manageable, less governable and less of a small community."
  • "CENTRALISING POWER IN ORGANICALLY EVOLVING ORGANISATIONS: THE WIKIPEDIA EXAMPLE"


Note now, that the current community is very DIFFUSE!

Counting vandalism and minor edits, of our articles:

  • 67.20% have been edited by fewer than 10 distinct Users/IPs.
  • 86.07% have been edited by fewer than 20 distinct Users/IPs.
  • 91.90% have been edited by fewer than 30 distinct Users/IPs.
  • 99.21% have been edited by fewer than 150 distinct Users/IPs.

See also the histogram.

Apparently the wiki has a natural tendency to self-segment and keep things locally "small-community" sized.

I suggest that the few exceptions (something like 200 pages) should be treated as pathological, rather than the rule.

Knowing this, I believe that neither of your above statements are correct or practical because:

  • Wikipedia self-segments into many small and managable communities. As it grows, the number of pathological cases will statistically increse ((random chance of becoming pathological)*(more pages)), certainly, but this is not indicative of an inherent breakdown in the system, which seems to have scaled quite well.
  • Centralising power in a situation where so much of it is currently still devolved would be a monumental change in the way the wiki is run. Basically it would be easier to start over.

Kim Bruning 21:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dublin City Hall[edit]

Could your picture of Dublin City Hall be used instead of the present one, which is only a drawing rather than a picture?--Play Brian Moore 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Different problem, The Nation[edit]

Hello! I notice you have a strong Irish Bias wrt "The Nation". Would you consider letting someone else review the situation and make a neutral descision? :-)

Kim Bruning 00:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue of what article should be at this title has been placed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. You can offer your vote and comment here: Talk:The Nation#Article title. JamesMLane t c 06:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The Nation, again[edit]

Someone moved the US page back to The Nation and it's now up for discussion at Talk:The Nation#Article title. Please call over and make your case. Stifle 11:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

MICHAEL COLLINS[edit]

That damn category again! Will you stop adding it. It is pointless listing people by religion.

If that WERE the case then why are there listings of people by religion (Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon, Jewish, Roman Catholic, Scientologist, etc)?

Why are there categories like Catholic Wikipedians??

65.88.88.214 19:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Check this out...[edit]

Take a look at this [3]. Two different people have butchered the name of the talk page. Any thing you can do to fix, I saw that you had corrected the article name. Thanks, :) Prsgoddess187 18:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting etiquette[edit]

Jtdirl, you may want to look over Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Voting_etiquette in regards to requesting that other editors take part in the poll at Talk:The Nation. --Howrealisreal 23:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

heya[edit]

Did you really mean this?

"Not a chance in hell. If you want an article on a US topic, put it on a US page. Don't be so arrogant as to presume that all the world regards The Nation as meaning an American publication. Attempts to highjack a page to push americocentrism will simply be treated as vandalism."

That seems a little, I dunno, strident (I don't care strongly about the issue at hand, just surprised by the vehemence of your tone--though I've been known to take hardline stances in my day too!). How is everything, by the way? Good to see you're still plugging away. I just pop in now and again these days. Makes one feel like Rip Van Winkle. --User At Work 21:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Heredital Titles of former Royalty[edit]

I move the comment you left at Talk:Constantine II of Greece here for the shake of clarity. --Michalis Famelis 00:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. States don't grant monarchical titles. Monarchs do. But monarchs do so with state authority. It is a two-fold process. However titles like prince and princess are different. Each member of a royal family is not given the title prince or princess. They do so by being born the son or daughter of a prince (not princess, BTW, in most states.) General precedent in both republics and monarchies if that such hereditary titles are presumed to carry on even if a monarchy is abolished. New titles cannot be created (or if attempted have no legal standing) but existing hereditary ones are treated as continuing. When Chancellor Kohl met the pretender to the German throne, for example, he referred to him as Prince Louis Ferdinand and called him "Royal Highness" even though the German monarchy was abolished back in the time of Louis Ferdinand's grandfather. (I think from memory that Kaiser Wilhelm II was his grandfather.) Similarly the crown prince of the defunct throne of Italy, can be called Prince of Naples but he could never be called Prince of Piedmont because his father, Umberto II, never awarded him the title while on the throne and could not do so after the monarchy's abolition. So unless the Italian monarchy is recreated (unlikely, since the House of Savoy is regarded as an embarrassing bunch of egotistical misfits even by many Italian royalists) there never will be another Prince of Piedmont. But there will be generations of Italian princes, who are so because they are born to a prince who was born to a prince who was . . .

Similarly if the British monarchy was abolished tomorrow, there never would be another Prince of Wales, as Prince of Wales is a creation and could not be done by a non-reigning monarch. But there would be other Dukes of Cornwall because that is a hereditary title that continues and does not have to be recreated.

Phillipos is a prince because his father was a king. His children in turn will be a prince. However he will never be able to be given a title by his father because his father lost the legal ability to do that in 1973 when the monarchy was abolished. The issue is simply that the Greek government tried, contrary to international tradition, to say that all hereditary princely titles are abolished too. Legally governments can't do that as a princedom is a matter of inheritance, not creation, and carries with it no legal rights in the absence of a monarchy. The French government in the nineteenth century also tried to unilaterally abolish royal titles. The response of the worldwide community to them, and to the Greeks, was the same: "oi. You cannot do that. We all follow the same set of rules on this. No one state can try to change them." So while France in the 19th century and Greece in the late twentieth century went ballistic over it, the world still called the descendants of French royals and of Napoleon Prince and still calls the kids of the exiled Greek king Prince and Princess. Eventually France shup up about its attempt to abolish French titles and quietly accepted they did exist and could continue to exist.

All Wikipedia does is follow the same definitions as the rest of the world: prince is an inherited title held by the son of a prince. The Prince's children are called Princess. To ignore world usage and follow the usage of one government (followed for politically motived reasons) would be POV. To follow the same rules as everyone else is standard. We are not the puppets of individual governments but simply follow standard international usage here as on other things. Governments come and go. International law and conventions tends to be more steady and continuous and less motivated by current political opportunism or the agendas of individual politicians or governments. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The above analysis raises some interesting theoretical questions and if you are interested I would be happy to discuss with you, in a theoretical, not a "wikipedia guideline" perspective.
Monarchy, is a way of government. Heredital titles are a way for monarchies to establish a distinct class of nobility. Nobility in itself is a formation of a particular kind of society constituency. The question is, does a change in the constituency of society towards a republican or other more liberal constitutions affect the nobility? Politically the obvious answer is yes, the nobility no longer has the political power it did. But the idea that a society changes its formation to another, means that the social aspects of nobility are also important. If society no longer believes that there is any kind of Divine Right to obey the king or the nobles, should society still recognize nobility titles? Nobility titles were granted by society to certain families when a Social contract was made between society and the said families. If society deems the contract invalid, does not society have the right to revoke those titles it granted?
Is it true that "No one state can try to change them"?? If the latter is true, then this idea can be easily extended to the denial that a state can change anything. And even more that the people cannot change anything. Is this not a deeply conservative idea, an idea that brings us back to the era of Metternich and the Holy Alliance?? But even without talking politically, is it still true in a constitutional way? (by constitutional I mean "the way society was constituted, formed a social contract") If we agree that there is no divine justification of monarchy, is it not true that political and social power comes from the people, from society itself, which has the right to decide what can be changed and what cannot?
And lastly, on the aftermath of a major social change, as is the abolition of monarchy and nobility, does not this call for political equality require that former nobility lose those social priviledges that guaranteed them political and social superiority?
I would be happy to hear your views on the above. Please excuse my lack of good expression. English is not my native language and although I am used to having theoretical discussions, I usually carry them out in Greek, the language of Dialogue and Reason (please allow me this mild form of chauvinism!). Fare well and happy WikiBreak! --Michalis Famelis 00:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Copyright Help[edit]

Hi Jtdirl, I was wondering if you could help with the copyright status of this picture Image:Flyingcolumn westcork-DB668.JPG or could add a fair use rationale to it (I think you uploaded it but I am no expert). I think its an evocative pic and wanted to use it in Arthur Ernest Percival to offset the British military pics but the WP:FAC process has suggested the copyright status is not clear enough

thanks Nickhk

Irish Wikipedians' notice board[edit]

I was adding a move request to the Irish Wikipedians' notice board of the Lighthouses in the Republic of Ireland to Lighthouses in Ireland and being impetuous, I corrected your misspelling of disambiguation in your previous note. I believe I am not supposed to modify other users work but hope you don't mind. My spell check picked it up and I am sure you would want it spelled correctly but I just hit correct; twice!!!! BTW, it looks like The Nation page will not be moved despite what I believe are flawed reasons by several of the opponents. Cheers ww2censor 05:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. I hope I got it right. if not please tell me and assist. Thanks ww2censor 18:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rv Provo page[edit]

Hi would you mind reverting the Provisional IRA page for me? My browser keeps losing the end of the article. This arshole keeps writing crap and reverting what everyone else is writing. I would not have a problem incorporating some of the figures he wants to cite if I believed he was honest and cited his sources and was prepared to leave the inforamtion other people wrote as well instead of deleting it. is there some sort of arbitration process we can use in situations like these? Jdorney 13:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:IrishSport[edit]

Please stop reverting this template without comment or discussion. The images are not fair use in this context, and its large clumsy appearance has already drawn comments on its talk page, and the talk page for Ireland. ed g2stalk 14:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

your message about Nation[edit]

hi there, sorry only got to your message now, my server is down so it's difficult for me at the moment. Yes, I totally agree with you on that topic, although my opinion does not matter anymore at the moment since the vote has closed. Keep me posted if you need anything else... with kind regards Gryffindor 15:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UKkingstyles[edit]

Someone decided to change the image from St Edward's Crown to Austrian Imperial Crown image stating "replacing Crown Copyright image with free-use image". I've reverted for now, but the copyright paranoia brigade may be back. Astrotrain 22:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That was me. The image is considered fair use; it's perfectly acceptable for articles about crowns but best not to be used in other contexts. If you could replace the one on your user page with a free image, such as this one, the copyright paranoia brigade would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Chick Bowen 23:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You said on my talk page that I am incorrect--actually, I haven't asserted anything about the image's copyright status, right or wrong. I'm trying to broker a compromise in a long-running dispute (only because Image:Kingcrown.jpg was listed at WP:CP), and I think if we just restrict the image to articles and use something else for the (very small) image in the template, we can all forget about it. If that won't work, then the various parties will have to work something else out, and I'll wait for it to come around to CP again. Thanks again. Chick Bowen 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Insertion of photos follow-up[edit]

Thanks a million. What I would like to be able to do is insert public domain postcard views dating from the turn of the 20th century of the Qu'Appelle Valley and assorted, mostly extremely moribund towns of the region, in the articles which I have created or expanded on this extremely lovely (but economically stagnant) part of Canada. The site which contains the photos is http://library.usask.ca/spcoll/postcardsquappelle/views.html and the articles which could benefit from such illustration include inter alia Qu'Appelle, Fort Qu'Appelle, Qu'Appelle Valley, Indian Head. How do I go about doing this? Thanks again. Masalai 10:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

UK and recognition of Eire[edit]

Following your comment on the Macedonian issue. I was under the impression that London does (did) not recognise the country under the name 'Eire' which, apparently, is why it is (was) not in official use at the EU or UN. Is that the case? Where can I find relevant information? thanks Politis 14:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Re your comments (retrieved from Demiurge)[edit]

UK dating[edit]

I'll keep an eye on it. Even though I am in the US, dating the UK way is the usual way. Thanks for the tip. Prsgoddess187 01:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIG[edit]

Hi Jtdirl,

It was recently brought to my attention that my signature included Image:uk_indian.svg, thereby violating WP:SIG. I'd never even heard of it, but there you go. Anyway, just giving you a heads up - no images in sigs!

Cheers, DJR (Talk) 23:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Anne Lawrence, née Windsor[edit]

"Née" means "born." She was born Windsor. She became Mountbatten-Windsor in due course but that doesn't change the fact that she was born Windsor. Masalai 02:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As I say, née means "born." Anne was not born "Mountbatten-Windsor"; she was born "Windsor." It is not appropriate to issue ex cathedra pronouncements as to what "Anne's maiden name is generally presumed to be." It is a question of what it is. Further, it is not appropriate to issue ex cathedra pronouncements as to what "It is standard to use [as to] ["]née]"] to mean [,ie] the family name as existing in teenage and adulthood, not a name changed by legal means many many years before." It is of course appropriate to cite authority for such pronouncements. Masalai 03:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Bill Clinton[edit]

Hi, can I ask, in accordance with your userbox on your user page, if you have actually met Bill Clinton? I noticed that it is not an actual template "template", but since you seem to be fairly interested in American politics I just have to ask! Thanks, KILO-LIMA 22:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

Hello, this arbitration case which you are involved in has not had any evidence added to it. Please corroborate your claim(s) with evidence on the evidence subpage, or else the case cannot be completed. Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 04:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:64.12.116.198[edit]

Saw your note on this AOL IP's page: Because of consistent vandalism by some users of this page, and a series of final warnings, all vandalism from this page will be instantly followed by a block. FearÉIREANN 23:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC) A user from that IP address deleted the references from La Princesse de Clèves yesterday: [4] It's completely up to you whether you want to slap a block on it; I'm just bringing it to your attention. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Grand Ducal Consorts[edit]

Hi Jtdirl,

I have started a discussion here, to try to sort out the titles of articles for Grand Ducal consorts. Would love to have your opinion. Thanks, Prsgoddess187 02:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates[edit]

Hi Jt, do you know anything about User:Rms125a@hotmail.com changing date formats? He's going around changing American style to British style, against the MoS, and saying that you asked him to do it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have to say that I've always written mm/dd/yyyy no matter where I've lived, whether in Europe or elsewhere, so I know this form is used all over the world, and I can't imagine why anyone would be puzzled by it. The MoS says that styles shouldn't be changed unless there's very good reason to e.g. British English in articles about Britain, but that otherwise the style used by the first major contributor should be used. Also, Canada is in the Commonwealth and uses mm/dd/yyyy. Finally, people who care a lot about this can change their date preferences, so there's no need to edit the pages. The problem with what Rms is doing is that he's changing the formats in a way that is close to trolling e.g. here, where he changed to the British format in David Byrne, who was raised, has lived, and worked in the U.S., and who is an American, just because he happened to be born in Scotland. I find that silly, bordering on offensive. If you could have a word with him and explain what the MoS says, it would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey there[edit]

I just wanted to remind you that rollback should be used for reverting vandalism. My edit here was not vandalism. I don't fault you because it was me being reverted (I know you meant well, no hard feelings at all), I just thought I'd remind you about the purpose of rollback. Thanks. See you around, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 05:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I know how editing from a bad connection can be frustrating. And yes I understand about the Bush opening. While I disagree with you on some of the lesser points, your general analysis is correct. See ya. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


Also, HAPPY WIKIBIRTHDAY!!! Sorry I didn't notice before. Hopefully you will be around in another 4 years! Cheers. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Dresden(thumbnail).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dresden(thumbnail).jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 11:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Styles[edit]

I had omitted it at the time because I thought the language about legitimate discussion made it obvious that said infoboxes were okay. But if they're being removed I guess we have to spell it out. I've updated the Manual of Style accordingly--this shouldn't be a controversial change. Mackensen (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Date formats[edit]

Please show me any page that links to the WP policy for date formats which you left in my talk page. It seems to me that User:Rms125a@hotmail.com changed to British date formats in some articles. As I know that the English Wikipedia mostly uses the British date formats in these systems, other than US articles, it may be true. The English Wikipedia uses the British time zone either. Thank you for letting me know. adnghiem501 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

linking on ITN re: Dublin riot[edit]

No. The Ulster Unionist Party wasn't involved. It wasn't a party political thing. In so far as there was any political allegiance, it was more Democratic Unionist Party than UUP. Thanks for the changes, BTW. I'm on a crap internet link right now that keeps crashing and forcing me to reboot my computer. So I end up having to save what I think are right links rather than do edit summaries to check. Every time I try that the system crashes and I lose the edit completely. So much for technology!!! FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 05:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply on Template talk:In the news and on my talkpage. I thought it was the Ulster Unionist Party because 2006 Dublin Republican riots#Background states '"Love Ulster" is a Unionist organisation...' and links to the party's page (a redirect, though). BTW, I linked to Irish Republicanism because I wasn't ready to point fingers. Are you okay with the link change on ITN to Republican Sinn Féin from Continuity Irish Republican Army ? Please change as you see fit.... Hope your system cooperates. :-) -- PFHLai 05:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yup. 100% correct. I couldn't remember what that IRA's Sinn Fein was called. I've been working on my own book all night and I guess my brain is half-dead. (Well actually I've been working on my own book, doing stuff on WP and playing Sim City, while watching a film!!!) At nearly 6am I really should be in bed by now. See you tomorrow, and good work on the ITN page. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint)
Thank you for your kind words. You are doing very well, too. I'm amazed how much you can multitask. :-) Sweet dreams. -- PFHLai 06:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Nick Adams[edit]

May I ask you, as third party, to have a look at the Nick Adams article. There is an edit war going on, as User:Ted Wilkes and User:Wyss, who are both placed on probation (see [5] and [6]), are still removing my contributions. I think that I have written a well-balanced paragraph on the rumors about Adams's homosexual leanings which is supported by several independent sources (see [7] and [8]). My opponents try to denigrate these sources. Perhaps you can help. Onefortyone 21:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention. Just a question. Could it be that the anonymous IP 24.148.51.62 is identical with Ted Wilkes? It is very interesting that this IP has now deleted the same paragraph Ted Wilkes had removed. See [9] and [10]. See also the list of contributions which proves that this IP repeatedly deleted edits relating to Presley's sexual relationships, as Ted Wilkes did in the past. Onefortyone 02:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Some additional information. On the User talk:Fred Bauder page, Ted Wilkes falsely accused me of distortions, though I am always citing my sources. He repeatedly called me a "convicted liar", which is certainly a personal attack. He has written about me:

Frankly, as one of the top, if not THE top, quality article creators at Wikipedia, I am tired of the tolerance shown a convicted liar ... I will continue to edit any of his distortions and/or fabrications in accordance with Wikipedia policy as they occur. See [11].

This means that Wilkes is showing no discernment as far as his own misguided behavior is concerned, and that he will continue edit warring with me in violation of his Wikipedia probation. To my mind, this is unacceptable. It should be noted in this connection that there is much evidence that Wilkes is identical with multi-hardbanned User:DW. For the facts supporting this view, see [12]. As the arbcom members are too busy doing other things, some administrators should keep an eye on the activities of Ted Wilkes. Onefortyone 13:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

re:Ulster (disambiguation)[edit]

Will do, i had not had it on the radar before. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 00:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It pisses me off to know end, my ancestors are from both parts. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 01:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Jtdirl - thank you for your partial apology on Djegan's talk page. I would appreciate that you could discuss issues much more civilly with me, rather than instantly jumping to assumptions about my intentions. I find there to be several problems with your analysis around Ulster (disambiguation), and hope that we can have a more intelligent debate of the issues at hand, rather than jumping to an agressive slagging match.

As for the moment, I have used up my 3 reverts so will not revert again tonight (damn, this stupid site is addictive! we need to get lives ;) ). I would however, hope you can discuss your points on this issue, without getting so agressive (I see you admit you have a habit :D ). I have some points about your reply that I think you ought to think about, but will make them at a more civil time and at a later date when I have more time. Jonto 02:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Irish neutrality[edit]

Would you mind taking a look at this edit for me, it does not seem to be entielry correct ant a bit povish?. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Onefortyone (Editor on Probation)[edit]

See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision

  • Onefortyone's conviction for lying and using improper sources means that he is showing no discernment as far as his own misguided behavior is concerned, and that he will continue these types of edits in violation of his Wikipedia probation. To my mind, this is unacceptable. It should be noted in this connection that the evidence provided in his ArbCom conviction showed his anonymous edits as "80.141.etc" included petty vandalism. Given his obsession and history of fabrications, because the arbcom members are too busy doing other things, some administrators should keep an eye on the activities of Onefortyone.

- Ted Wilkes 17:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation. He is still calling me a liar. This is certainly a personal attack. He has deleted some passages concerning Adams's supposed homosexuality and an external link from the Nick Adams page, although he is banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. See [13] and [14]. See also his aggressive behavior on the Talk:Nick Adams page. Onefortyone 19:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have two things to say.

  • While I agree User:Ted Wilkes has violated his ban, Onefortyone is also violating his probation with all these dubious edits to the sexuality section of the article. I humbly suggest that both be given clear warnings to cease and desist from any sort of editing in the article for now and that neither be blocked unless it becomes necessary as a preventative step to enforce the existing ruling (which I strongly disagree with but respect in terms of process).
  • I think the RfAr should be re-opened, there is much to discuss and resolve. The last RfAr has not worked. Wyss 19:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

2006 Dublin Street Riots[edit]

I figured out why Charlie Bird was called an "Orange Bastard": Re: Charlie Bird Don't you all understand, Charlie Bird was attacked because his surname is quite non-Gaelic, and he may have been mistaken for British or even, horrors, a Protestant. After all only British Protestants can belong to the Orange Order. Just, of course, as only Irish Catholics can belong to the Ancient Order of Hibernians, that charmingly ecumenical association.

I just confirmed that Charlie Bird IS a Protestant (Hun, don't you Irish Catholics call his ilk) b/c he attended Sandymount High School, and no Catholic would/could do that. He's a Proddy, and the IRSP/Republican Sinn Fein could tell immediately. That explains that.

24.136.99.194 04:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Time covers[edit]

Well i saw that you made a responce on the matter at the rfc. I dont know if you happened to catch , but an image was removed and deleated from an article that i would guess we both watch, Seán Lemass. First off while i do agree a review of images is warented, the "summary excution" of images, whith out any discussion on it's fair use or fair dealing, while their is a discussion underway on the policy is unwarnted, i am also not a fan od the pne person decision, with respect to the great laeder, if we are supposed to be a "community" the ruling of one user without and real discussion from the communit as a whole, in which i do not belive their is ever, is also unwarnted and ill-advised. I am not going to go on a rant, but just figure i give some of my own opinion. Anyway, this image is image:Seanlemass.jpg, i was tempted to re-upload it, but i figure i get a opinion first. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User 24.136.99.194 and dates[edit]

Hi. There is a user who is currently going around Wikipedia converting all the dates he sees to Day Month format from Month Day format despite the fact that the preferences in your session will alter it accordingly. This user is also delinking links throughout these articles that should remain. The reason I'm contacting you is that he is signing a lot of his justification for these date changes as "int'l nominals required (European subject matter) as per Administrator "Jtdirl"" and therefore using you for his justification. He will not respond to comments on his talk page about this and some of his edits, such as the delinking of valid links, are just vandalism. Any chance you can have a look and if necessary take some action as he's not listening to us lowly users. Ben W Bell 08:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

New user Danny B. (usurped)[edit]

It is very interesting that a relatively new user has deleted exactly those passages from the Nick Adams article which support the view that Adams had homosexual leanings and reverted the Elvis and Me article to exactly the version preferred by Ted Wilkes. Could it be that User:Danny B. (usurped) is related to, or identical with, Ted Wilkes? See [15] and [16]. Onefortyone 20:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly no coincidence that both Danny B. (usurped) and Ted Wilkes contributed to the following Wikipedia articles: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], etc. Their editing interests are very similar. Onefortyone 03:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

John Bosco[edit]

  • I juest removed your last edit to that page. I agree that the page is a tad syrupy - but that has nothing to do with the text you inserted. If you read here Talk:Saint John Bosco#Refutation of the sources, you'll see that I refuted the sources of that text you inserted. Before it goes back in it should have better documentation.evrik 20:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Queen consorts- style boxes[edit]

I've had to revert another attempt to remove the style boxes from the Queen consort articles (Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg). This time by User:Mais_oui!, who seems to like causing edit wars judging by his recent behaviour. Astrotrain 23:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com at it again[edit]

This time he tried to falsify a comment made by you, to support his sectarian assumption that Charlie Bird is a Protestant (because he went to Sandymount High School, which according to Robert must be a Protestant school, because all Catholic schools have "Saint" or "Christian Brothers" or "National" in their name [26]). I feel this user's abusive behaviour has gone unchecked for far too long and would appreciate your advice on how best to proceed. An RfC or an RfAr? Demiurge 23:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I've opened an RfC on this user, which you can find here. Demiurge 20:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

August Kubizek[edit]

May I ask you, as third party, to have a look at the August Kubizek article. There is an edit war going on and User:Wyss, who has been placed on probation with her friend (See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Proposed decision#Ted Wilkes and Wyss banned from making homosexuality/bisexuality edits) is still removing my contributions. I think that I have written well-balanced information on Kubizek's homosexual leanings which is supported by several independent sources (see historian and University of Bremen professor Dr. Lothar Machtan and noted Viennese historian Dr. Brigitte Hamann). Wyss trys to denigrate these sources, calling them "codswallop" and "tabloid style material". Perhaps you can help. Karl Schalike 18:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your negligence[edit]

  • Your block was a misinterpretation of both the arbcomm ruling and its present status. You have been manipulated, at best.
  • The wording of the block notice was equivalent to harassment.
  • I was unable to edit my own talk pages or send emails to admins during the time my block was in force. This represents further negligence on your part and was a violation of Wikipedia policy.
  • The block notice itself was ineptly formatted and represents further negligence.
  • Finally, I find your user signature both disruptive and deceptive since it hides your true user name. In the future, please sign your posts in the normal way, with four tildes.
  • If you wish to communicate with me further concerning these matters, please do so only via the email link on my user page. Thanks. Wyss 21:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your arrogance is breathtaking.

The arbcom ruling is clear and unambiguous. You were blocked for breaching it. If you breach it again you will be blocked. If you don't like the rules, leave Wikipedia. If you stay on Wikipedia, obey the rules. You don't live in some sort of parallel universe whereby arbcom rulings about you don't apply to you. Either you obey them or you will be blocked. It is that simple. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 21:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

black culture in Ireland[edit]

im planning on making a nice wikipedia article on black culture in Ireland.im an irish-american who supports the rights of nigerian asylum seekers in Ireland and im for a multiracial Ireland.you seem to be very knowledgable on irish topics ,i was wondering if you would like to collaborate on this project.the eluhanla drama made me more determined to help nigerians to not get bullied by michael mcdowell.basically the article will cover the demographics of blacks in ireland plus lists of notable black irish people like paul mcgrath,samantha mumba,phil lynott,luke thomas

Not expressing love[edit]

Octagon-warning.png
Canceled
Your account has been canceled for blocking people for expressing love. Please log off Wikipedia and do not return.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Removing a notice might indicate a psychological imbalance or bad attitude.

And what exactly was the term of endearment that I expressed that set you off? --DavidConrad 10:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy[edit]

I'm still waiting on that biographical article "policy". Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) doesn't support your changes to Bob Dylan, but obviously you have access to some higher, more prescriptive form of "WP rules" which we mortals cannot seem to find. Happy editing. Rhobite 01:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Orphaned fair use image (Image:Churchnavan.jpg)[edit]

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Churchnavan.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 08:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation[edit]

User:Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation. On the Talk:Elvis Presley page, he falsely calls me an "ArbCom convicted liar" and says about the sources I have provided,

Published in 1979, two years after Presley died and after Nick Adams had been dead for eleven years. At the time its gay publisher William Kern was hiding behind the name "Bill Dakota" he was also hiding behind U.S. libel laws that allow anyone to fabricate anything about a deceased person. And, oh yes, Alanna Nash made no such claim (another lie by Onefortyone) in Byron Raphael's Playboy article quoted out of context here (as Onefortyone regularly does) but thanks to this magazine cover, we now know where Byron Raphael got his information!

See [27] and [28]. Certainly this is a comment on a gay-related matter which endeavours to denigrate my sources. According to the arbcom, Ted Wilkes is "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality". See [29]. Onefortyone 16:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes has now repeated his personal attack post which falsely claims that I am "convicted for lying by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee..." See [30]. Furthermore, he has deleted paragraphs I have written for the Elvis and Me article simply because these edits are not in line with his personal view. See [31]. He has also removed external links from the Memphis Mafia page which were added to this page by other users. See [32]. All this is unacceptable. Onefortyone 19:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I most certainly have not violated my probation but User:Onefortyone has and as a result he has been BLOCKED today by a Wikipedia:Administrator here as see on User talk:Onefortyone. - Ted Wilkes 22:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Schalike[edit]

Dear Jtdirl, I though you had posted to my talk page but I soon found out it was Schalike who used some of your posts to another page. [33]. He has posted the same on the Eva Braun talk page. Anyway, I have explained my reverts on that same talk page [34] and did what I had to do and did the minimal revert, removing the clearly POV sentence [35]. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 20:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now, Jtdirl, followed the links provided by Schalike for the quotes attributed to you and have found that you indeed said what he quoted, but that it was meant in the context of Cary Grant - with not a word in regard to Eva Braun or Hitler and with no appearance of Schalike in the discussion. This a clear misuse of your good name and your adminship for Schalike's purposes. Outrageous, IMHO! Str1977 (smile back) 20:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Copy of message left at User talk:Str1977

My edit clearly and precisely stated that I was quoting Jtdirl on the subject of homosexuality. Your previous repeated complete deletions of my edits on Eva Braun based on absurd reasoning without discussion certainly casts doubt on your credibility especially when suddenly you "allow" it after I point out what a respected Wikipedia:Administrator said on several occasions. You have done the same massive deletion on the National Socialist German Workers Party on 22:25, 27 February 2006 and did so by insulting me with a violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy by calling my contributions "pet issue pushing. I'm not sure of the reasonoing behind your repeated reversal of edits on homosexuality but I note you have cooperated with Wyss who is banned from making such edits. Your games won't work, particularly with someone like Jtdirl. (cc Jtdirl) Karl Schalike 17:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


your expertise[edit]

Hi Jtdirl, I have a question about moving this article Cecylia Renata to her maiden form as queen consort, looking forward to your input... with kind regards Gryffindor 16:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Jim Duffy (author)[edit]

I note that you reverted my edits to Jim Duffy (author). As a Wikipedia:Administrator, you are aware that it is improper conduct to edit your own article, such fact reiterated recently by User:Jimbo Wales. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 01:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Your claimed Academic credentials[edit]

Other editors at Wikipedia rely on you as you have repeatedly stated you are a historian and made assertions on various topics based on a claim to be an "academic" with a PhD degree from the National University of Ireland and that you are a published author (both history and fiction). You asserted these things as a fact for a long time on your User page as seen here. People need to know if you have lied about your credentials or not as they in fact have depended on your advice based on your asserted qualifications. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 03:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes[edit]

You probably shouldn't be blocking this guy, because of your personal involvement in his trolling. I was just about to block him for 3RR and for WP:POINT, but you already did it. Next time, get somebody else to do it, I'll be willing to do it. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Ted Wilkes[edit]

It should be noted that Ted Wilkes seems to have created a lot of new sockpuppets. One of these is "Danny B. (usurped)" This user name he used for an alleged "third-party" statement during the time Ted Wilkes was blocked. See [36]. Significantly, Danny B. (usurped), as a relatively new user, has deleted exactly those passages from the Nick Adams article which support the view that Adams had homosexual leanings and, at the same time, reverted the Elvis and Me article to exactly the version preferred by Ted Wilkes who was blocked for one week. See [37] and [38]. Furthermore, both Danny B. (usurped) and Ted Wilkes contributed to the following Wikipedia articles: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], etc. Their editing interests are very similar. Surely this cannot be just coincidence. I wonder how many other sockpuppets Wilkes may have created. Onefortyone 14:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Some additional facts supporting the view that Ted Wilkes is identical with DW[edit]

Multiple hardbanned User:NightCrawler alias User:JillandJack alias User:DW is certainly identical with Ted Wilkes. Here is a debunking edit by NightCrawler:

PLEASE NOTE: I, NightCrawler, have never attacked anybody at Wikipedia, the record of contributions will show hard work creating quality non-copyright violated articles to the best of abilities and go about fixing numerous links, inserting full birth/death dates when only a year is listed and then posting that info to the “year” page. Nightcrawler never interferes in others work, ever. However, while NightCrawler never has and never will attack anybody, this User most certainly will respond forcefully to an attack on me through lies, innuendo or other conduct unacceptable to Wikipedia policy. Thank you for showing respect to ALL Wikipedia users.

See [48]. This is remarkably near to expressions frequently used by Ted Wilkes in defense of his own misbehavior:

  1. Note that User:Ted Wilkes never inserted statements from less that unimpeachable sources that in fact contradicted these statements by the Crime Magazine personal website etc. Instead, I put them on the Talk page with detailed rebuttal that was ignored by Onefortyone. See [49].
  2. I am the one who requested this page be protected. For the record, I NEVER removed any link to The Guardian, EVER. Before making such a statement, it is best to check the facts. See [50].
  3. NOTE: "to engage in prostitution" is TENTH in Webster's order of definition but again, Guralnick never once used the word in that context – ever. See [51]

Furthermore, both JillandJack and Ted Wilkes contributed to the List of Canadian musicians and to the List of people who died in road accidents. See [52] and [53]. Both JillandJack and Ted Wilkes are interested in the history of motor racing. See [54], [55], [56], [57] and [58], etc.

In the past, DW, NightCrawler and JillandJack also contributed to the Bugatti article. See [59]. In addition, DW, NightCrawler, JillandJack and User:Karl Schalike contributed to the List of Quebecers. See [60]. Finally, both Karl Schalike and JillandJack contributed to the List of racing drivers. See [61].

I think, this is evidence enough that DW, NightCrawler, JillandJack (and probably Karl Schalike) are identical with Ted Wilkes.

The case of Karl Schalike is somewhat different and confusing though, as he made edits in support of the view that Adolf Hitler may have been homosexual. Ted Wilkes, on the other hand, is frequently deleting contributions which prove that some celebrity stars may have been gay. However, between 29 March 2005 and 2 February 2006, there were only three Wikipedia contributions by Karl Schalike, two of which were significantly made in defense of Ted Wilkes: [62] and [63]. Furthermore, this edit by Karl Schalike is certainly an allusion to, if not a parody of, my own contribution here. If Karl Schalike is indeed identical with Ted Wilkes, then it is quite obvious that this user endeavours to game the system by poking fun at serious topics.

In my opinion, it is high time to hardban Ted Wilkes alias DW for all of his system-disrupting activities. Onefortyone 20:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that you present any evidence on WP:ANI? If we can prove he's DW, we can get him banned. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Nobel succession box[edit]

One person does not succeed to another in holding the Nobel Prize. Just because the prize has been awarded again to someone else does not mean the existing holder passes the prize to the next winner. Who won in the previous year and the subsequent year is as relevant as who won in the two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight... years preceding before and after. Try creating a template with all the winners if you like. --Jiang 02:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The use of succession boxes for awards was only implemented, unilaterally, by User:Savidan in the 3rd week of February 2006. This usage has never been discussed and is not standard WP policy. I disagree that it does not imply succession. The very box states "Succeeded by..." and the use of "title" in the template suggests its creators did not envision it be used in this manner. This should be discussed on a community page, since I think it hasnt come up as an issue before. How does the 'pump sound?

And note that per the MoS, the picture at John Hume should be right aligned, not left aligned. I don't know why you mass reverted my edit there.--Jiang 07:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Consorts again[edit]

See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). I think you'll have a view. Deb 11:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Gee, I make one liitle suggestion to keep things consistent, and whoo boy! Prsgoddess187 12:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Royal Child mortality[edit]

Apologies are in order, as I have just nominated this category for deletion and only noticed afterwards that 'you had created it. Mind you, it's about a year old and there's still only one article in it. As you'll instantly realise, it was nothing personal. Deb 16:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Banned for one month?[edit]

Just a question. Administrator Stifle has banned me for one month (!) from Elvis Presley, Memphis Mafia, and Elvis and Me "for violation of probation by tendentiously adding links and poorly-referenced claims." See [64]. I do not think that this was necessary. I have only discussed some newly discovered sources with other users on the Talk:Elvis Presley page. See [65]. As for the other pages, I only reverted repeated edits by Ted Wilkes. Certainly this is part of a long edit war. His contribution to Elvis and Me includes false information. Original quotes from Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me undoubtedly prove that the following paragraph Ted Wilkes has added to the Elvis and Me page is a fabrication:

She says Presley was a very passionate man, however, because of attitudes at the time, strongly reinforced by his Pentecostal upbringing, he told her that her virginity was a scared thing to him. Presley's generation still had a double standard that cheered men for their sexual prowess with women, but insisted a girl should remain a virgin until married and if she did not, she was labeled a slut.

The words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" (included by Ted Wilkes) nowhere appear in Priscilla's book, as an Amazon search shows. See [66], [67] and [68]. I corrected the text but Wilkes repeatedly reverted my version to the fabricated one he has written. See [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], etc. For direct quotes from the book, see [75]. On the Memphis Mafia page, Wilkes is frequently deleting two external links to sites related to the Memphis Mafia arguing that these websites are "improper" and personal websites. See [76], [77], [78] etc. etc. It seems as if Wilkes does not like the content of these pages. Significantly, the two external links to websites he had inserted are also links to personal websites. Isn't this double standard? See also this comment by administrator Tony Sidaway [79] and Talk:Memphis Mafia. So I don't understand why an administrator has now blocked me for one month from these articles, especially since my opponent in the edit war is also on probation for his contributions (and for harassing me) (see [80]) and there is much evidence that he is identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack, etc., who was constantly gaming the system in the past. See [81]. I am not sure whether User:Count Chocula, who claimed that I violated my probation, is somehow related to Ted Wilkes. Their editing interests are very similar. Onefortyone 01:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:OurLady.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:OurLady.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets violated Ted Wilkes's probation[edit]

User:Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation. Although he is "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality" (see [82]), he edited the Boze Hadleigh article heavily dealing with the homosexuality or bisexuality of celebrity stars, thereby denigrating the author and reverting the edits of another user. See [83]. Based on recent checkuser evidence, Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike appear to be the same. See [84]. As both Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike have contributed to articles related to the alleged homosexuality or bisexuality of famous personalities (see [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], etc. etc.) thereby violating the probation of Ted Wilkes (see [95]) more than five times, Ted Wilkes, who has wasted the time of many users, administrators and arbcom members, should now be blocked for one year or hardbanned indefinitely, especially in view of the fact that he also seems to be identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack. See [96]. The arbcom ruling says, "Should Ted Wilkes ... edit any article from which (he is) banned (he) may be blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year." See [97]. On 28 February 2006, you admonished Ted Wilkes not to breach arbcom rulings again: "You have now made 3 breaches of the arbcom ruling, the two that caused this weeklong ban and the one that caused the earlier ban. If you make 2 more at any stage before the expiry of the arbcom ruling, or its amendment, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for one YEAR. " See [98]. Onefortyone 16:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

your expertise appreciated[edit]

hi Jtdirl, how are you? I could use some input on this Talk:Marie Josepha, your help as usual is greatly appreciated, thank you. with kind regards Gryffindor 09:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny...[edit]

Just a random note to say I loved your anti-Bush/Republican poems... very funny indeed. Hope u don't mind, but I forwarded two of them to some friends. (with attribution of course...). Cheers, Mikker ... 22:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You might want to...[edit]

...drop by Wyss' discussion page and take a peek at the history, notably the many reverts that "Musical Linguist" is making. While Wyss continually accuses other Admins of role-playing and having sockpuppets, a cursory Check User on him/her will prove he/she has several of his/her own. My own "outing" of him/her in this regard is being quickly reverted. Why do you think that is? And why, you might ask yourself, is it being done by Musical Linguist?  ;) 207.200.116.132 04:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Governor-General[edit]

Agree with you about WikipediaAdventures' edits, which are appalling. (British Guyana? Governor-General of Rhodesia?) Didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Quiensabe 14:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of Ted Wilkes[edit]

In my opinion, User:Cynthia B. is identical with User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias User:JillandJack. Both Cynthia B. and DW/JillandJack or Ted Wilkes contributed to the following articles: [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105],etc. This suggests that Ted Wilkes, who has recently been banned for one year, created many more sockpuppets, as DW did in the past. Onefortyone 00:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


Anne Marie of Greece[edit]

Hi Jtdirl, could you please contribute a vote at Talk:Anne-Marie of Greece? Thanks. Charles 18:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at Talk:Anne-Marie of Greece[edit]

Heya fellow admin, we have a sockpuppet issue at Talk:Anne-Marie of Greece that's somewhat blatant. I've laid out fair warning without any blocks, though I did cross out the only 100 percent obvious one. — Deckiller 04:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Perhaps you are correct :] I will cross out my vote and just abstain. Opblaaskrokodil 21:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion to Irish Republic[edit]

I don't agree with all of the edits that User:Scolaire made, but they are certainly not vandalism and it is unreasonable and irrational to revert without explanation. He gives the reasons for his edit at Talk:Irish Republic and you should respond there. Minimally, Áire" is bad grammar, Aire is correct. --Red King 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you,[edit]

Thank you for your revert back to English measurements on Israel. Sometimes, thank you gets forgotten in such matters, but in any case I wanted to say it.

By the way, I don't like guiness much either. I'll take the Smithwicks also.

And I use Mac OS X at home to contribute but I have some minor problems with it. I need to upgrade but I keep waiting for the next best thing. Regards, MJCdetroit 16:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

George Bush minute counting[edit]

I was wondering if you would mind if I copied and posted the George Bush "the world is counting the minutes" userbox on my page. Since it's not a standard userbox, and I'm guessing created by you, I thought I'd ask before just appropriating your work product. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you--Fuhghettaboutit 23:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Prince William of Wales[edit]

Any normal summary or talk page discussion? --tasc 22:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Scotland- Royal Arms[edit]

It seems I am still being accussed of vandalism and falsely misleading readers by stating "The Royal Arms of the Queen in Scotland" at the arms' image caption in the Scotland page. I can't understand why User:Mais_oui! is insisting that these are not the Queen's Royal Arms. I was never convinced that the arms are offically called the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland in any case. Any comments on the issue? Astrotrain 13:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I did note your previous comments at Talk:Scotland. However Mais_oui! is still reverting back the image caption, accussing me of "smoke and mirrors". He seems to be against the idea that these arms are "Scottish" or that they belong to the Queen. Silly, I know. Astrotrain 14:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Arbcom[edit]

This has the language: do not remove warnings on this page. This is ambiguous: can it be removed itself (for normal archiving, for example), or not? The reason for not removing warnings is that this hides information from the next admin; but blocks are in the block log, so no information is lost. Septentrionalis 20:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Not currently active[edit]

Do you want your user page in this cat? If so, fine. Septentrionalis 20:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You said it so well.[edit]

Re: the following posts you made about a revolting image


"Jimbo was 100% right to remove that image. If the media had picked up on it it would have been curtains for Wikipedia. The media would have had a field day painting WP as a place that is tolerant of paedophiles, and that would have led to a boycott, parents blocking access to WP for their children, schools blocking WP from their computers, etc. The slightest suggestion that Wikipedia was in any way associated with paedophilia would have devastated the project and undermined its credibility completely. The mind boggles at the sheer niaive stupidity of some contributors on this issue. They are like kiddies playing with matches who throw tantrums when someone with sense takes the matches away to protect them. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 14:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)"

"Frankly, looking on some of the comments, here, children would have more cop-on. But this site is used by millions of children. It cannot risk being tainted with paedophilia. Have some cop on and live in the real world. This site is not a game. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)"


What can I say, other than AMEN! Amen, my brother! You said it so well, I wish I had your words. Indeed, the damage would have been eternally irreparable had the image stayed on who knows how much longer! I wondered what we'd see here on Wikipedia in 10 years if such vileness was allowed here now. This creates a gleam of hope that the Wikipedia in 2016 will be better and more user-friendly than the Wikipedia in 2006. I don't know how you could have said better than what you said there. If you were a woman within three years of my age, I think I'd marry you. --Shultz IV 06:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

A final decision has been reached in the above arbitration case, and the case has been closed.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Gearóid Mór[edit]

Thanks for the article. Its amazing nobody thought of it before.--File Éireann 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Irish Slaves[edit]

I admire your comprehensive knowledge of Irish history. Is it possible for you to post a Wikipedia article on the Irish who were kidnapped and enslaved or arrested as political prisoners and enslaved by the English and sent to the Puritan areas of what is now Massachusetts, USA in the 1600s or to the Caribbean islands like Barbados from the 1600s to the 1800s?

Most people in the U.S. have no idea that the Irish were enslaved just as the Africans were - only the Irish were much cheaper to purchase than the Africans. I can understand why the Irish were so humiliated by this terrible treatment that they kept it hidden, but I think that Irish historians should tell the truth now. The horrors that the Irish slaves endured are too terrible to be forgotten by the historians and the public in general.

I was told by my father, who was born and raised in Ireland, that former General and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was descended from Irish slaves. I wonder if Colin and his son, Michael Powell (former U.S. Federal Communications Commission [FCC] Chairman), are aware of that.

I've talked to many Irish-Americans - including PhD Historians - who never heard of it, but I talked to people from the Caribbean Islands like Jamaica, and they were shocked that U.S. citizens didn't know about it. They are very familiar with it.

Thanks! Bcsurvivor 19:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII[edit]

I really didn't delete that much text. I used the [citation needed] template a lot and reworked most of the text. The user who is mad at my changes is the one who is removing things, namely sourced criticism of Pius. I did remove a section heading but I moved the text from that section into the main section. I also simplified a 300 word block quote to the sentence which was actually relevant. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We'll see what Str1977 says on that talk page. Depending on his response, you may be right. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler and Catholicism[edit]

I am beginning to agree with you. Ironic, I was just researching a report on Hitler when you messaged me, and I was on the Mein Kampf Wikipedia article when I received the message. You may want to see this; it's interesting. Thanks for your consideration. Эйрон Кинни (t) 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

I strongly suggest you protect User:-Inanna- and User talk:-Inanna- - I highly doubt this user will give up. --Khoikhoi 22:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Khoikhoi 22:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Block conflict[edit]

There were conflicting blocks on Brandubh_Blathmac (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). I took the liberty of fixing it. --GraemeL (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Subpages[edit]

Hi Jtdirl. Could you use subpages for your user talk archives, instead of separate user pages? For example, User talk:Jtdirl (Archive 14) is the talk page for "Jtdirl (Archive 14)", a user who doesn't exist. User talk:Jtdirl/Archive 14 would be a better name. Could you please move the archives, update any links, and delete the redirects? Thanks, User:dbenbenn 01:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please! Can you imagine how it felt to join and see my new talk page?!? Jtdirl (Archive 14) talk 20:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Spat[edit]

Interesting little spat thíos faoi sin at 1.6 i think

Austrian Emperors Francis Joseph and Charles[edit]

Hi Jtdirl,

I have brought the articles for these two emperors up for move. Would you care to lend some insight and possibly a vote? Many thanks :-) Charles 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Gabriella Windsor[edit]

I thought you would find this move interesting. Someone is mucking about in the minor members of the British Royal Family, again... Smiley.png Prsgoddess187 11:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Queen Mother/King Mother[edit]

I was more concerned with the statement that a King Mother would be a ‘constitutional impossibility’ — has there ever been a legal opinion given on that subject? If there has not, then inferring the matter simply based on past usage would seem to me a matter of original research. David Arthur 13:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Styles before names[edit]

Do you have any suggestions as to how to deal with Le baron (talk · contribs)? He's been adding some useful info on decorations, but he's also been putting military ranks and styles before people's names, despite admonitions. Thanks. Choess 18:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Block on User:Avillia[edit]

Dear Jtdirl: I am writing to let you know that I've amended your indef block of Avillia (talk · contribs) to 24 hours, since the talk page message in question with the legal point in it was in fact merely intended as a joke, as evidenced by the deliberate bad grammar (as the user has informed me via IRC). I hope this is satisfactory; I merely thought an indefinite block under the circumstances was rather too harsh since it was the first block of this user and the matter in question was rather trivial. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Bosco[edit]

I appreciate the clean-up of the Bosco page. evrik 04:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)