User talk:Jtdirl

Earlier comments are in user talk:Jtdirl (Archive 1) user talk:Jtdirl (Archive 2) user talk:jtdirl (Archive 3) User talk:Jtdirl (Archive 4) User talk:Jtdirl (Archive 5) User talk:Jtdirl (Archive 6) User talk:jtdirl (Archive 7) User talk:jtdirl (Archive 8) User talk:jtdirl (Archive 9) User talk:jtdirl (Archive 10)

Please leave your comments here:

Hi, the bit you quoted on the mailing list wasn't by the anon IP - rather, it was by User:Jnc and seemed to be aimed against the IP. The full diff is here... the sarcasm bit is just that, while the rest seems to advocate taking a balanced, NPOV approach.

(Still, I'm not commenting on the block of the actual anon IP guy, since I've not really been following that). Evercat 00:48, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I was wanting to ask you something. I remember a while ago you said about how to read news sources properly - you noted that if there was any indication of foul play in David Kelly's death, they would say "apparent suicide" instead of "suicide", as they were saying at the time.

Well they are saying "apparent suicide" a lot these days! [1] [2] Should I read something into this, or is it just because they don't want to be seen to be pre-empting the official enquiry? Evercat 11:57, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

They are saying 'apparent suicide' because the coroner’s inquiry into his death has been adjourned pending completion of the Hutton inquiry. Mintguy 21:19, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sysop reading list could use your input. Better educated sysops is the first step towards dealing with Wikipedia:troll war. We have some time to educate them before it starts in earnest, the current generation of orcs and trolls are very mild compared to what's coming. So let's get these readings in shape. Then, we'll see from there who is ready to really work out a good way to defend what passes for truth around here. It's time to get this off the plane of dealing with cases one at a time, and build up some people who can see trends and come up with policy on a more than reactive basis. EofT

Graculus has been involved in an edit war on the Continuation War. His version is by and large NPOV and the other might as well have been written by JoeM. I'm far too busy to be involved at the momemnt, but it's a shame to have Graculus bare the thankless burden of maintaining high standards on that article alone. 172 16:37, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Irish Wikipedia - have you looked at it? I take a look from time to time to see if it somehow magically gets less crappy, but alas, no. I mean, Vicipéid? I know there's no 'w' in Irish, but there's no 'v' either, so why not Wicipéid? And An gceapann tú go mbeifeá fuar, mura raibh ciclipéid agat?? My Irish is really rusty (I was hoping that having an Irish wikipedia would inspire me to relearn it) but doesn't that mean "Do you think you would be cold, if you had your own encyclopaedia"? And shouldn't "mura raibh" be "mar bheadh"? I wouldn't even know where to start, because the software is completely different to what I'm used to (though I'd have to guess that rewriting the main page would be it).

My sisters are back to school soon, I'll see if they can get their teachers to have a look - the youngest attends a Gaelscoil, the older formerly attended one, and studies some subjects through Irish. Won't be till mid September though, I'm off to Ibiza Friday for some self discovery (alcohol tolerance levels :) -- Jim Regan 01:16, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I know I've gloated already, but 10 day forecast for Ibiza and Dublin. If it makes you feel better, I lost money on this - I took out a loan to pay for my brother to go, and decided to quit his job and go on the dole rather than work for spending money, and I only get 40% back. -- Jim Regan 02:32, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I loved your inverse proportion theory on opinion and expertise! It's incredibly applicable on so many different levels. 172 03:46, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ibiza's great. Cigarettes and beer are half the Irish price, and I had my first hangover since my 21st. Got a couple of nice scenery photos. Oh, and temperatures are higher than that forecast!! Take care. -- Jim Regan 16:03, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I run into a lot of GMTA around here, that's one of the things I love about the place. :) - Hephaestos 04:43, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good move on adding the link back to Talk:List of heterosexuals. I got sidetracked dealing with a bit of vandalism and by the time I went back to the above page you had already added it in. The lets talk about it on the talk page is one of the oldest tricks I have seen on wiki. Pages have ended up on the VfD page for weeks, on occasions before we reorganised the dates months, while everyone waited for a decision on the talk page and the chat there ended up meandering all over the place before dying of boredom. I am completely oppossed to the talk page route for that reason; it is simply a stalling mechanism. If we need to go off the VfD, we should go to a special delete debate page that has a definitive timeframe for reaching a conclusion. So we need to keep the decision focused on the VfD page and the week timeframe. (The other technique some use is to move the debate to the talk page, then delete any mention of the VfD nomination from the VfD and hey presto, everyone forgets that it has been nominated. The tricks some people use to stop their beloved pages being deleted, eh! :-) ) lol FearÉIREANN 21:24, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I took care of this. It will all take place on Talk:List of heterosexuals/deletion from now on. The timeframe is one week.

Alternatively, you could note that I've routinely moved extensive deletion discussions to the relevant talk page in the past, and I will again in the future. Martin 21:44, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Similar comments apply to Zippy, I expect. Martin 21:35, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I moved this comment down abit as you appeard to have missed it:

I don't know if you will be able to help me with this but it's worth me asking, as I have some Irish Gaelic that I need to be confirmed correcrt, so is this the correct spelling (and a good translation)? "Ceol an ghrá" (The Music of Love). - fonzy

Question regarding something you wrote at Talk:Loyalist Feud. Evercat 18:31, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

ok ty for the help with the Irish Gaelic you gave me, I made a minor correction to Eurovision Song Contest 1972 re: an accent. Unfortunatly if u go to teh page u can se Ireland did not do too well of it. - fonzy

Refactoring

JTD, do you mind if I move any/all of your comments from talk:current events to other talk pages? I'm inspired by Martin's refactoring, but I thought I'd ask first so you wouldn't be shocked.

I'd like to move your superbly cogent remarks about the PA to someplace like talk:Mahmoud Abbas -- re: who's really in charge, Abbas or Arafat? --Uncle Ed 14:11, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The neo-fascist British National Party (BNP) candidate Nicholas Geri, who is of Italian descent, wins a surprise victory in a local government by-election to Thurrock Borough Council in Essex. The British Labour Party, which has a 21 seat majority on the Council, saw its candidate pushed into third place, behind the BNP and the British Conservative Party. Turnout in the by-election was 22%. [5]

I'm not bothered enough to remove this from Wikipedia:current events, but I'm not sure it warrants inclusion. Taking this ward for a council seat is hardly a groundshaking event. The turnout was only a 22% and a few hundred votes made the difference between 1st and 3rd place. It's not the first council seat the BNP have won (the currently hold 18). Ok it is news, if it does deserve inclusion in Wikipedia:current events, so does [3] :-)Mintguy

VfD organization

Please participate in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion before reverting to a format that many users have protested against.—Eloquence 02:35, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting VfD. You're braver than I am. :) Angela

James, please let us talk about finding better ways to keep VfD in check than a high maintenance split up solution. Even Hephaestos agrees that the changeover was not done in compliance with community policy (although he thinks that I overemphasize this policy, which is a criticism that I gladly accept). He has stopped reverting the page so that we can do this the right way without wasting our time on edit wars. Furthermore, I have just reorganized some VfD stuff to keep the page size down, which would be lost by reverting the page. The discussion seems to be moving to more productive arguments now, so let's continue in this vein; if it turns out that there is strong majority support for the subdivision solution, it will be back up and running in a few days. What do you think? —Eloquence 05:41, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure; his imperious refusal to discuss anything on his user talk page initially made me think it might be DW, but he's not showing any other symptoms so far. I'm still not sure. - Hephaestos 05:47, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Deletion threshold

Another matter which influences the length of controversies regarding deletion is whether we delete only if consensus can be reached (one or two non-regulars don't matter much, but if regulars oppose strongly, a page is usually not deleted), or whether we delete if there is support above a certain threshold (say, 70% or 80%). Regarding the list of heterosexuals I think you argued with such percentages of the vote, which are however not relevant as per our current deletion policy (which completely glosses over the issue of the ultimate sysop decision, whereas VfD itself simply refers to "consensus"). I think the whole process could be streamlined greatly and pages would be removed quicker if we had such a percentage threshold. This would also encourage tabulation of votes which would again make the page more compact. So if you want to argue for that, you have my support.—Eloquence 06:14, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

Talk page deletion

Hi, I've just undeleted the heterosexual deletion discussion. I agree it's kind of silly, but it may be a useful precedent and in this case it's good to keep it documented so we can refactor it and refer to it later. This is in our own interest in case someone uses these "If we have that list, we also need this list" argument again -- saves us time. Also, Martin explicitly requested that the talk page not be deleted ("Whatever happens, this talk page should be kept").—Eloquence 21:30, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)

I'm such a dumbass. I went to Manumission last night, and forgot my fscking camera. Feel free to point and generally mock me, it's well deserved. The reputation is pretty accurate, it does seem to be the biggest club ever, and it sure as hell felt like the best. Pity about the prices (tickets €45, drinks €11.50) - Jim Regan 13:17, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

You'll love this.

Paragraph I recently deleted from Nazi Germany

Hitler "reannexxed" Austria in ?1938? in a military action he called "Liberstruam"(Living Room in german).Although it was essentially without any fatalities, it was in clear violation of the Versialle Treaty and Austrian right to self determination. England and the U.S.A. decided to negotiate with and finally appease Hitler through a English diplomat named Neville Chamberland. Mintguy 09:20, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems a strange thing to do a couple of days after saying "I think it is a very bad idea to move discussion to talk pages" on the Vfd talk page but I thought I would try it anyway. If VfD has to stay as one page there needs to be some way of keeping it smallish. Angela 23:41, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)

Howdy. I'm back from Ibiza (Sob!). At least the weather was starting to get colder when I left :) -- Jim Regan 15:06, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if someone else were to deal with the talk page, actually, perhaps Angela or Martin? - Hephaestos 22:45, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. As for debates that have taken place within deleted Talk pages, those debates aren't lost per se - they are available for recovery on the wretchedly huge Special:Undelete. If you like, I can search for any such debates; I've been looking for a long, tedious task since my campaign against Wikipedia:Subpages to be moved has been winding down. -- Cyan 23:39, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hello Jtdirl (I think I have not tell you hi in a long time -))

Re:your comment on User talk:Ducker page. I value your opinions very much. Not so much Ducker ones. I somehow have trouble to consider valid the opinion of a user, whose only contributions basically consist in reverting other people talk pages :-) Take care Anthère

Hi (eh, twice in the same day !)

Of course, everyone is important. Perhaps those only reverting other people edits as well :-) Even if only to keep the pressure on :-) I dunno for articles (the lists were bad), but I am quite sure he reads his talk page. I don't feel misrespect for me when he blanks it after me. But I understand that people keep reverting his blanked page, as a sign of their displeasure. Not as "please understand the way you are doing things is wrong" but rather as "please understand we think the way you are doing things is wrong". Which is sligthly different.

Imho, we are just bothering ourselves with very tiny issue indeed. And making a mountain of a minisculus hill.

And yes, Duker certainly was well intentioned. So were (are) you. We just don't have the same opinion. No big deal :-)

Please also, have a look at this buddha last contributions. Except for blanking his talk page, they are OKAY. None of his recent contributions has a background for banning. But even if he turns not to be a valid contributor in the end, I will still not consider banning is the right solution as respect to blanking own talk pages.

Take care

Anthère 18:27, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

JTD, please don't tease Lir. He's even more sensitive than RK.

Heh heh. Adam is back in one of his whining, whinging moods again. Oh goody. Don't ya just love him!

Laughing at another contributor is not nice.
Personal remarks like one of his whining, whinging moods aren't polite.
And can you really defend Oh goody. Don't ya just love him!?

Lir may or may not have reformed. If not, the nicer we are to him the quicker I can build an airtight case for dismissal. But if he has reformed, let's give him a chance: don't pick on him. Please. --Uncle Ed 16:18, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The page is, as the page name makes clear, the final archive of a delete debate about a since deleted page. Once the decision is implemented, based on the vote, and in the set timeframe (7 days) the page ceases to be 'live' and is kept, alongside other /delete debate pages, as an archive which is no longer meant to be edited, merely kept as a record. Adam Rickleff seems to think (familiar *sigh*) that he alone can edit such pages to doctor votes and add in comments even though everyone else doesn't. I reverted simply to preserve the agreed community archive, rather than Adam's 'new' edit, created weeks after the page ceased to be 'live'. Maybe all /delete pages, once they have moved from a live debate to an archive record, should be protected automatically. FearÉIREANN 00:40, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I removed this from wikipedia:protected page - now that the page is unprotected and (hopefully!) everything is resolved, I thought that might be best. I left the notice that the page was protected by Ed, and added a note that it has now been unprotected. I don't know if you want to add your text to wikipedia:problem users or the page in question? Or indeed back on wikipedia:protected page, if you think it belongs there? Or just delete it... Anyhow, seeyas. Martin 19:12, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hello again. After a month of very limited activity, I can see that little has changed. Lir is back as Lir, and he's playing the same tricks on you.

My activities, now picking up pace once again, have changed little either. Fred Bauder is also causing trouble, conflating typology with government-type in the Cold War article. It's just like that excruciating, protracted dispute on China, with the two of us comprehending that the Communist state is a clear-cut regime-type (and moreover that sourcebooks refer to regime-type), while others were squabbling over which of the latest typology, diminished sub-type, sub-variant of a typology put forward in political science fits the PRC best. Ironically, we were accused of agendas, despite being the only two who stated no opinions concerning any typology. And now, Fred's calling me the apologist once again, not even realizing what the argument's about in the first place. 172 22:33, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Don't get too mushy, just because I let you use that silly "rotten boroughs" term. We are still in an intense edit cold war over History of the Soviet Union where I am hellbent on eradicating the POV word "regime". If you collapse on any front, itll be a domino effect and pretty soon my legions will be knocking on the door of New Imperialism. Lir II of Koria

Pssst, archive this page. some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb

It is not in the least bit inappropriate for me to give you advance notification of my intent to address the issues regarding the History of the Soviet Union. LirQ

Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (see bottom)

Hello. I've replied about rotten boroughs on my talk page. :) By the way, you haven't really been using the POV term "regime", have you? *rolls eyes* -- Oliver P. 04:31, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I just removed some comments I had made earlier, assuming that you haven't read them yet. I did so because I might have been way off about Lir. In a single edit he nixed the b.s. in the privatization intro and articulated a very complex relationship in a succinct, comprehensible way. Unlike others, he pinned down the proper balance, being as suggestive as possible while avoiding crude reductionisms. His edit proved that he was fully engaged in the discussion on the talk page, not misinterpreting a thing.

Perhaps he's cooperative and adaptive after all. I think that the problems in the past stemmed from his unwillingness to listen to appeals of authority (and for that he should be praised). Perhaps it's just not enough to say to Adam, as a matter of fact, that some point (e.g., "regime" is a values-neutral term in this context) is a consensus among scholars. It might be necessary to demonstrate it analytically and empirically to him. He can be very stubborn over trivialities, and it can be a huge burden when demonstrating when his stubbornness is misplaced, but I've discovered that he can be flexible. In addition, he has the right attitude too. He's right to view any assertion with skepticism if he can't vouch for it with what he knows. No one's going to fool him.

Honestly, I though that you were insane to lobby on behalf of his return at first (especially after he had commented that he hasn't given up on the term "regime" in the articles on Soviet history). But I'm beginning to realize that you were right. If everyone cooperates with him, Lir can be an excellent contributor. 172 03:37, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I know Adam doesn't believe it but I have long believed that he is one of the brightest and most capable contributors to wiki. If he can manage to work with people rather than against them he could be one of wiki's best people, famed for the quality of his contributions rather than the rows he causes. FearÉIREANN 18:34, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi JT, a very minor question: I can't find validation of the spelling "diocesian" (in some articles, like St. Mary's Pro-Cathedral and Catholicism) vs. the more common "diocesan". Is "diocesian" UK/Irish usage? Just wondering! Harris7 02:02, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Despite what the BBC may have said (I asusme you were referring to Adam Hart Davis) - The term "Association Football" does not have any offical status. The Olympics officially call it "football" [4]. FIFA officially call it "football" [5]. No body "officially" calls the game Association Football. Mintguy 07:45, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

--- Its not me you called stupid, its poor Nicholas whom you slandered. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Yes, yes -- Im quite familiar why you chose to use the word regime; what matters is what the most common meaning of regime is -- what will the average reader think when they see the word regime? As we both know, just about the only time the average person has ever heard the word, was when George Bush explained that regimes were the building blocks of the "axis of evil". As such, the average reader will understand regime in light of the first definition of regime, as stated by Dictionary.Com:

1
- A -- A form of government: a fascist regime.
- B -- ...suffered under the...regime.

So long as the word regime remains there at History of the Soviet Union, essentially, the wiki is taking sides and justifying the Russian Revolution -- which is a violation of NPOV.

Lirath Q. Pynnor

I saw this accidentaly, but have to comment on it - are you trying to say that Soviet Union was not ruled by a form of government? Nikola 16:57, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hello :) I'm addressing to you as I've noticed you on Wikipedians by field of interest. I made a page on Orthodox Celts, and Irish music band from Serbia, and I wanted to ask you if you could go through their songs, mark the traditionals and link those traditionals that deserve a page on their own; you could also remake links to instruments or create redirects (I don't know how important is each of the instruments). If you don't think you could do it you could ask someone else you think could. Also, do you have any idea where should the page be linked from? I haven't found a list of Irish music bands... Nikola 16:57, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I am wrong, you are right (although only technically, which is all that counts I suppose) :-).

I emailed the FA. The term "Association Football" is used in the FA's official publication on the laws of the sport, updated every June, which is called "Laws of Association Football". So according to them that makes it official. However other than that, the term is 'rarely seen or heard now' (their words). Rule 1 of the "Rules of The Football Association" includes the line: "All Clubs and Affiliated Associations shall play and/or administer football in conformity with these Rules and also (a) the Laws of the Game and (b) the Statutes and Regulations of FIFA and UEFA". (no mention of Association Football). In the rules of the sport, which are drawn up boy the IFAB and are called the "Laws of the Game" there are no references to "Association Football", but to be honest the only references to "football" concern the ball itself. As far as the chaps who drew up the rules in 1863 were concerned they were making a unified set of rules for the game of 'football' out of the mess of rules that then existed. In those days the terms "using association rules" and "the association game" were as much in use as "association football".

Regarding the analogy to Tennis/Lawn Tennis. Many of the sporting bodies for tennis use the terms 'Lawn Tennis' in their names. This not the case with the professional sporting bodies for football. However a number of football clubs use AFC (Association Football Club) in their name. So that kind of evens it out.

Anyway, after arguing the contrary, I hope I don't look too much of a fool at the end of all this. Mintguy 18:16, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

a stupid question

Hi Jtdirl,

I have a really stupid question on the birth of the British Parliament. According to the information on this web, there was no standing parliament pre-1640s. So, when was the embro of parliament first formed, for what cause and under what circumstance?

I would be really grateful if you could send your reply to [email protected]

Thanks in advance, CC

Heh. I had to share this with someone. Apparently, I've been accused of not only being a Zionist, but part of the meta:Zionist Occupation Government of Wikipedia! Fun. Surely, this makes me a true Wikipedian. :-) Evercat 23:57, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, you should stop calling me Adam. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Is it just me or are there lots of new people running around? As for using my so-called "name" -- the harm is already done since there are links all over the wiki stating my name and my once private diary. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Was wondering about your opinion on these edits [6] - Hephaestos 19:27, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

the text below was cross-posted to User talk:Netesq, User talk:Jiang, User talk:Jtdirl, and User talk:Cimon avaro

I find what you have been writing about me frightly hateful and dishonest. The main problems, however, remain. You and your friends still are allowing a proven pro-Nazi viewpoint to be pushed on Wikipedia from Stevertigo and his friend Martin; the documentation came from his own edits, and has been analyzed by experts on the subject. Yet the Nazis are the heros here? That's isn't NPOV, that is anti-Semitism. Your refusal to admit this tells me things about you that I would rather not have learned. RK 00:51, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Also, I see that you still pretend to be confused about the issue. Two people kept harassing me on my own User Talkpage. I excercised my right to remove their comments from my Talk User page. All Wikipedia users have always had that right. Yet then other Wikipedians such as Angela began harassing me; shockingly, they reverted my edits to my own page, and restored the harassment. When I reported this non-stop harassment to the Wiki list, no one helped, and in fact people slandered me. You yourseld didn't do a damn thing to stop this harassment and vandalism; you never asked for them to be banned. So you left me no other option, literally. I thus was forced to temporarilly do the same thing to them that they did to me. However, I also mentioned this action to the WikiEn list...I was making a very simple point: If it is wrong for someone to do this to you, then it is also wrong for you to do this to someone else. Yet you allowed their harassment of me, and simultaneously pretended that they could not understand this point. You topped it off by falsely accusing me of vanalism. Well, that is just pathetic. RK 00:51, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I wonder how much harassment I can put on someone else's page (perhaps yours?) until I see someone (perhaps you?) remove it? Then I can do this again and again until you take action...and then you would be banned? Does this sound reasonable to you? Frankly, to me this course of action sounds like harassment, and its totally insane. Why you think that it was Ok for others to do to me, but not for this to be done to anyone else? Please do not continue with such harassment. RK 00:51, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl, could I persuade you to change your default abbreviation for Wikipedia to "WP" (or "the 'pedia" as others use but that doesn't shorten it much!) I think calling it "wiki" doesn't fit right with all the other wikis out there. Just my 2c which you can ignore if you can't get out of the habit! Thanks. Pete 12:47, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hey. Ever study Isaiah Berlin and positive and negative liberty? I was hoping to find someone to look over Positive Liberty/temp and tell me if I've made it better or worse than the previous page at Positive Liberty.... Evercat 22:19, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the uneat comment. I needed a laugh today. :) Angela 19:22, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

Spotted this on Distributed Proofreaders, thought you might be interested - Proportional Representation by John H. Humphreys -- Jim Regan 04:15, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still think usernames shouldn't be regulated. I guess I wouldn't do it again though. You're writing a newspaper article about Wikipedia mentioning me? Cool! I understand if you don't want to mention me after this. LDan 01:04, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

With all the latest hullabaloo with user:Liberal etc... I would like to ask what exactly FearÉIREANN meant, and is it political/ethnic/etc...戴&#30505sv 03:28, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC) --Go raibh maith agat, fear Eireann...戴&#30505sv 21:12, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Any comment on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions Odd capitalization in commercial names apart from "rv. That is incorrect"? Andy G 20:32, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I also think Wikipedia needs me, but wikipedia is not a single entity, rather a group of people. And seeing that somehow extremely few people feels concerned by me being blocked, even though I was acting in good faith and certainly not against the rules, I do not think I am so important that I should stay. Less than 5, for perhaps ... 100 wikipedians. Remember, consensus is at least 50 or perhaps 75 % ? 5 is miserable and not a consensus :-) (think over consensus...) In any case, Jimbo apparently decided I should not stay; not even answering or apologizing. So what ?

Anthère 10:57, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Re: the titles of Cardinals, please see Wikipedia:Village_pump#The_title_of_Cardinal. I believe the Vatican disagrees with your characterization of correct English usage, and presume their usage should be respected. --Delirium 19:56, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to not include honorifics in article titles at all, unless that is the only or primary name the person is known by. Hence, Franz Cardinal König should be at Franz König, regardless of whether Franz Cardinal König or Cardinal Franz König is correct. This is standard policy across all types of titles, including presidents, kings, dukes, and so on. --Delirium 23:39, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

My apologies; apparently this is no longer policy. I do recall a lengthy debate about whether to, for example, have articles at President John F. Kennedy or John F. Kennedy, and similarly at Prime Minister Tony Blair or Tony Blair (or Chief Justice William Rhenquist vs. William Rhenquist), and the discussion was in favor of a blanket policy against honorifics or titles in article titles (they were to be permitted in the articles themselves, just not in the titles). Apparently this policy was not maintained, however, so we have a strangely incoherent set of case-by-case policies now.

But in any case, my apologies, as my disagreement is apparently with the current policy, not with your implementation of it, as I agreed with the one that was reached and then apparently rescinded. --Delirium 00:09, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)

My apologies as well for being more forceful than warranted; I wasn't aware of the history of this issue or that it had been discussed at length (I probably should've checked the naming conventions page first). I still think the current method in running text is somewhat less than optimal, primarily because it's confusing to people not already familiar with it, but I'm not as staunchly opposed as previously. --Delirium 05:01, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)

BBC ONE

Sorry to bother you with more naming convention debates, but there is currently a discussion at Talk:BBC ONE over whether to move it to BBC One. You previously said something on this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. I hope you don't mind, but I just copied your response from there to Talk:BBC ONE. Angela 23:42, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

Since you're not only a professional historian, but also a professional encyclopedist, you'd be positioned to speak with the greatest authority when explaining the principles and functions of an encyclopedia. It would be a great help to User:Gboy if you could elaborate on this. Reacting to a dispute on the Shenzhou 5 talk page, he stated, and reiterated, his feelings that "analysis" has no place in an encyclopedia. He seems to be confusing an encyclopedia with an almanac. Since he is a very capable new user, it would be a shame if he started to habitually demand on other talk pages - due to his misconceptions concerning the nature of an encyclopedia - that articles on complex topics be dismantled, left only with inchoate lists of facts. 172 05:57, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Everything's quiet on that page now, but it would be still helpful if you wrote a few comments to Gboy. After all, we must make sure that an active, capable new user reach his full capacity to write good articles, which is contingent on understanding the nature of an encyclopedia. 172 01:37, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Several weeks after I emailed them I have received this reply from FIFA which contradicts the response I got from the FA. Mintguy 06:37, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Dear Sir,
Thank you for enquiry.
Your understanding is correct. Should you wish to know more about the History of FIFA and football, we kindly invite you to consult our website : http://www.fifa.com/en/organisation/historyfifa.html
We trust this will be of use to you.
Best wishes,
FIFA Media Department
-----Original Message----- From: XXXXXXXX XXXXXX [7] Sent: 01 Oktober 2003 01:02 To: [email protected] Subject: Association Football
Hello. I wonder if you could possibly answer the following question. Is the term "Association Football" ever used in any official capacity? Obviously the game is known throughout the world as simply "football" and as "soccer" in countries which have their own native code of football. And I know that soccer is an abbreviation of Association Football. It is my understanding that the term "Association Football" was used when the laws of the game were drawn up in 1863 to distinguish it from other codes, and that whilst it is still used in this capacity today, it does not have any official status, and that the official name of the sport (as used by the the FA, IFAB, FIFA and the IOC) is simply Football. Is it possible to please confirm this? Or otherwise confirm that this isn't the case.
Regards
XXXXXXXX XXXXXX

Mintguy 06:36, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have added the following to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Lirath Q. Pynnor

List of Prime Ministers

It is not uncommon to find sources which confuse the office of the secretary of state with that of the prime minister (or "first lord of the treasury"). For example, William Pitt (1st Earl of Chatham) is not infrequently stated to have become prime minister in 1757 (see: ISBN 0-321-09434-4 (Nash -- p.129) and ISBN 0-534-60008-5 (Spielvogel -- p.494)); however he became the Secretary of State in 1757, and the First Lord of the Treasury in 1766. Note, the office of prime minister didn't even technically exist, during the 18th Century; it was instead known as the office of the first lord of the treasury. (see: [[8]])

I adopted the following from your statement at the Talk Page:

Until 1905, the Prime Minister was not an official title; however, it was used unofficially to refer to a senior minister (usually either the First Lord, Lord Chancellor, Lord Privy Seal, or the Secretary of State) who had sufficient power to be known as being "premier among ministers". Lirath Q. Pynnor

Mother Teresa edit war

Look, James, we've been through this before. Edit wars won't solve conflicts, they will only aggravate the situation. I realize that MT enjoys an idol-like status among many people, and we should certainly try to be respectful towards these people by attributing all criticisms properly. I agree with Bryan that we should try to summarize the quotations, which would probably help in toning down some of the sharper criticisms of her person. But Jiang and Bryan agree that simply splitting away the negative parts about her won't accomplish your goal of making the article more neutral, in fact, it will have the exact opposite result.

This situation could have been avoided if you had voiced your opinion on the talk page before doing the revert-thing. As you should know from our little row over Pius XII recently it is quite possible to work together to achieve mutually acceptable results. But just making major structural changes without prior discussions is not going to do the trick. Getting it right takes time, but the result is almost always preferable.—Eloquence 22:18, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:Mother Teresa. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 23:36, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

JT, a bit of advice: doing the sorts of things that get others to accuse you of blind (or silent, or whatever... reverts without discussion) reverts is probably a Bad Thing and isn't liable to solve much. Since both you and Eloquence are normally sane and intelligent people, perhaps its time for both of you to step back and reflect that there isn't really a reason that two sane intelligent people should be having this big of a problem... Let's all be nice and friendly, OK?

P.S. Really, abusing his developer powers? Don't you think that's a bit much?

--Dante Alighieri 19:02, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Peace offer

James,

I have suggested that you routinely behaved like a bully. I have just looked through your recent edit history and have found little evidence for that. I remembered earlier episodes, especially with newbies, but it appears that the recent conflicts seem to have mostly been between the two of us. So, I apologize for unfairly characterizing you as a bully. I am therefore also willing to ascribe the recent unpleasantness and possible rashness in editing to heightened emotions for both of us. After earlier conflicts on VfD, Catholicism etc. we haven't exactly been in a mood of mutual understanding that is necessary for being cooperative. Add a nasty cold on my part on top of that and you have the ingredients for edit wars.

If you think about it, many of our conflicts concerned very minor issues, and our inability to reach consensus on these was probably mostly the result of the overall anger on both parts. You are angry because I called you a bully, talked about initiating a ban procedure against you, I am angry because you called me ignorant of Catholicism, a POV-crusader etc.

I would like to give another shot at cooperation on the Mother Teresa article, under the assumption that we both act in good faith and are not trying to insert POV into the article. I propose the following rules: We will both refrain from personal attacks, on the talk page, in edit coments or on other users' talk pages. Secondly, whenever there is a difference in opinion, there will at most be a single reversion to an earlier revision (and whenever there is a reversion, an explanation in the edit summary is required), and at that point the matter will be discussed on the talk page. Again, the discussion on the talk page will be purely neutral and factual. If no consensus can be reached on an individual point within 3 days, a vote can be started on that matter. In any case, no further reversions will take place until the matter is resolved. Compromises will be suggested on the talk page first. Being a little less bold may have its advantages.

As for the separation of individual sections, I reiterate my earlier offer: If the article gets too long, we can split away individual sections regardless of what's written in them. Otherwise it should stay in one piece.

Can you agree with this peace offer? In any case, I pledge that I will no longer bring up the ban issue provided that you try to refrain from attacks against me (I also will try to do the same, of course).

I know that we can work together, we've done it before. A little Albanian woman should not stand between us! ;-) —Eloquence 04:50, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)

Pronun Guides

The guy to talk to about that is User:Nohat - hes been on the ball as far as pooting in all kinds of SAMPA - but this was with the understanding that the SAMPA could be machine converted to either IPA or robot voice. The Taoiseach example (with an expnation of SAMPA to explain the SAMPA to describe the name pronu, is rather a bad example, and should be stopped, if people are getting carried away with that. CC:User:Nohat --戴&#30505sv 16:55, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

John Millington Synge

Hi, someone created a stub for John Millington Synge and I added some basic information, but he is an author I don't know much about. Perhaps you'd care to take a look? -- Viajero 16:38, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

First off, telling somebody that they must be wrong, simply on the grounds that I support them; that is not criticism, it does not qualify as criticism. Secondly, Adam has not made such "criticisms" just once, or even just five times, he has done so repeatedly. Thirdly, I have tried to address the issue with him. Thusly, I am left with little choice but to file a formal grievance; which I have done. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You stated, "take criticism like that with a pinch of salt."; such a statement indicates that Carr's "criticism" was somehow appropriate; however, it was not criticism. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Sometimes you percieve spite, where there is none. As long as you aren't trying to ban me; nor are you trying to revert my edits -- I really don't have anything to complain about. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Actually I don't know anything about Lirath's previous history at Wikipedia, although I have become aware that he has one. My only knowledge of him has come from the debates at the Talk:Jesus page, from which I have now withdrawn having concluded that it is impossible to reach consensus with someone who has no clue about what writing history, as opposed to theological propaganda, means. No doubt my way of expressing this was somewhat blunter than was polite, and if he has taken offence I apologise. But I maintain my view that he should not participate in writing about historical subjects until he learns something about historiography. Adam 04:40, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mother Theresa

Thank you for the invitation to vote on the Mother Theresa article but I would rather not get involved. The reason I was able to protect the page in the first place was because I had not been involved and had not expressed any opinion either way and I intend to keep it that way. I'm having edit wars over less contentious topics like the List of encyclopedias instead. :) (There's a vote going on there too by the way.) Angela 23:24, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I've been following the Mother Teresa stuff, although I haven't said anything about it...I have voted on the things I have an opinion about. (Interestingly, there is a new high school named after her near my house...) Adam Bishop 05:25, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for pointing me to the vote page! Pfortuny 08:29, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you sometimes use "lol" on Talk pages and on the mailing lists. For most people, the standard interpretation of that abbreviation on the internet is "Laughing Out Loud". It seems to me that you intend some other meaning, so that could create some misunderstandings. And since I'm at it: you also often say "Wiki" when you mean "Wikipedia"; normally it's clear what you mean, but "Wiki" or "Wikiwiki" is the name for the general technology underlying Wikipedia and similar editable sites. Cheers, AxelBoldt 00:03, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I thought lol was "lots of laughter"?

Adrian Pingstone 08:00, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

See [9] and [10]. AxelBoldt 09:41, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It is generally taken to mean either Lots of Love or Lots of Luck. FearÉIREANN 19:08, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, I always thought it meant "Lots of Love", but my children have been laughing at me when I've left them notes with that abbreviation, because they insist it means "Laughs out loud". Deb 19:42, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It means laugh out loud in telephone texting language, but a lot of things in texting language (sorry, txtng) mean different things to usage on the net. (Hell, are we developing different languages now, depending on the form of communication technology used?) LOL on the net usually means Lots of Love or Lots of Luck. :-) lol FearÉIREANN 20:26, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have always seen it used as "laugh out loud" on the Internet, and never "lots of love" or "luck". Maybe different abbreviations are used in different ways in various places in the world? Adam Bishop 20:28, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

AAAAAGH. Regional variations too. Talk about the Tower of Babel! :-) FearÉIREANN 20:49, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)