User talk:Ugen64
Note: Text on here will be archived (infrequently), as there is rarely very much discussion on this page.
Political spectrum
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Political spectrum has alot of alternates, and more info, etc.. Sam Spade 18:45, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I haven't used one of the Talk pages before, so I hope I'm doing this correctly. I looked at your recent Gettysburg edits and I have some issues with a few of them. [Overall, you've put in a number of good things, although I wonder where is the tipping point between a concise encyclopedia entry and a lengthier article.] I believe the ethic of this effort is for me to make the mods and then we can discuss. OK? I'll do the edits later today.
Hal [hlj]
Thanks for replying on my page. I did forget the magic signature. (I haven't done editing recently and these things fade. :-))
big_hal 14:30, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
AMA co-ordinator election is now on
You may now vote for user:Ed_Poor or user:Alex756 in the first ever AMA co-ordinator election. Follow the instructions on Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election Procedure for more details.
AMA members who wish to abstain from voting must also e-mail [email protected] with notice of that intent.
To clarify anything before voting, ask user_talk:Zanimum or user_talk:Jwrosenzweig on their talk pages.
AMA members have until April 30, at 11:00:00 EST to vote. -- user:zanimum
- Your vote has been counted. Jwrosenzweig 15:50, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
My comments on talk page
I'm sorry but why you deleted my comments [1] and [2] when it's obvious that they cannot be considered to be any attack by anybody? Tkorrovi 03:13, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Why you archive this talk page so frequently? And you never discussed it with anybody before doing that, maybe this is not what others want? Tkorrovi 03:39, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
RE: Holocaust and Talk Pages:
"1) Person editing in mentions of Palestinians is an anti-Semitic troll."
My mentioning of the Palestinian Holocaust and Genocide hardly makes me "anti-Semitic", which is a misnomer and adding this truth does not make me any "troll", and both are nothing but slanderous "personal insults", and no more and no less.
"2) I am not opposed to discussing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I am largely sympathetic to the Palestinians. However, this is not the appropriate article for that issue."
It is "very appropriate" because this is "the lesson of history" that MUST BE LEARNED by all, or another "Jewish Holocaust" is VERY LIKELY to happen again.
"3) Even if it were the appropriate article, the information being added was non-encyclopedic and not suitable for the position in the article in which it was being placed. Considering the aforementioned anti-Semitic troll nature of the author, I did not feel particularly inclined to waste my time revising it for them. Snowspinner 00:37, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)"
The article section is "quite appropriate" for the reasons I have just given, what information, specifically, was "not suitable" and "why" for the position in the article? HOW DARE you personally insult me with falsely and personally insulting me and calling me any "anti-Semitic" or "troll nature" because you do not understand just how relevant and important that section within the article actually is? You are such an narrow-minded bigot that you do not see what the future holds for all Jews, everywhere, with your own selfish and biased bigotry and ignorant pov editing of the truth. A blood curse be upon all of your ilk that always censors the Truth for any such selfish and foolish and bigoted narrow-mindedness!
Hi ! Double thanks for the support on steward, and for the fun on irc :-) Hope to make limited abuse ;-) SweetLittleFluffyThing
Ferret ? Hu; but I never had a ferret on my shoulder :-(
why are you being silly
? Sam Spade 02:52, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- P.S. paul isn't exactly a valued contributer, he is an ornery anon w pushing an unpopular POV. ;) Sam Spade 02:56, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Abkhazia/Incumbents
Abkhazia was an independent principality between its independence from the Ottoman empire (1500s) and its annexation by Russia in 1864. It currently claims independence from Georgia (since 1994), but this republic is not internationally recognized and so for now I will only consider the principality a separate state. -- Jonel 03:17, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Glad you like the heads of state pages. John Kenney came up with the idea of separate pages after we decided that we couldn't be fair to all states and keep them all on the main year page. See the 1876 page for his template. I have been doing the XXX of Abkhazia because I've seen that monarchs in general have that, while presidents and prime ministers do not. Some of the later Abkhazian princes have names that could be confusing, so I would like to keep that convention. -- Jonel 03:21, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You call those 1816 ones obscure? You beat me to the general idea, but I'm working on different year and throwing in the Maronite Catholic Church. That seems to be what the trend on those pages is going towards; I would have liked to have a nice neat Heads of state list, but it seems that is not to be. -- Jonel 02:40, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hey, we seem to have ironed out at least the formatting issues on the lists of leaders by year stuff, and I've started a wikiproject on it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year if you want to join in. So far we've mostly just summarized the stuff that's already been hammered out. john 06:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Adminship
I have nominated you for adminship at sep11:Wikipedia:Administrators. --"DICK" CHENEY 16:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
message
Please don't edit inside that text-but where it says "leave a message". Especially when the page is protected-not cool. GrazingshipIV 01:03, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
If you could sign on this page where it says
"Other users who endorse this summary (~~~~):"
That would rock. Cheers, Sam Spade 04:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- You should read everything on the page before signing anything :) AndyL 08:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- If you are joining Sam in certifying the dispute, you will need to sign the page as indicated by Sam. Otherwise, the dispute will not be considered certified and will be deleted after 48 hours. --Michael Snow 17:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- He did, have you looked? Sam Spade 17:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- I had checked initially, I missed that this had been added. --Michael Snow 17:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- I was never very good at rules-lawyering, but isn't the requirement that two users certify the dispute, not that one user should certify and the other endorse? (And hasn't this come up before on another RfC page?) Anyway, ugen64, if you do in fact certify the dispute, would you make that clear? If not (if you endorse it, but don't want to certify it for whatever reason), we'll just take the page down at the prescribed time, eh. —No-One Jones 23:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- Hello again. Sam Spade has altered the summary quite a lot since you endorsed it; would you be sure to reread it before you sign again? Thanks. —No-One Jones 00:35, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Augusto_Pinochet#CIA_poll
FYI, User:VeryVerily is now claiming that you had no role in editing or contributing to the page, visibly no understanding of the issues, and were voting ideologically [3].
So, I guess that renders your comments irrelevant- or maybe not. 172 09:30, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
- 172 is smearing me [4]. P.s., pleased to meet you. - VV 10:01, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Another poll. 172 14:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Request for AMA assistance
We have received an anonymous request for AMA assistance from an IP address, I have directed that individual to contact me if they wish not to create a Wikipedia account. If you are interested in helping please let me know and if I hear from this individual I will try and put you in contact. See Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance. Thank you. — © Alex756 03:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hey
Looks like I found another 'kid' on wikipedia. Or at least I heard you were a kid Hello. I'm 13 years old...and I live in Illinois. Ilyanep (Talk) 14:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Anonymous note
Sorry about the anon conflict, but that's bound to happen from time to time. I actually don't think I've seen it happen before, but I guess it's more likely at a University. – Jrdioko (Talk) 23:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Response to your comment
Peerage
Generally, articles should begin simply "John Smith, 1st Baron London" (or whatever)—"The Rt Hon," etc., is not necessary. The full style would, especially for Dukes (who tend to have numerous titles), be extremely long, and would be ugly in bold font. Post-nominals should not be included here, I believe, because they are not usually used to refer to the individual. Instead, one might have a complete listing of all of the individual's titles elswehere in the article (see the example Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, which lists his numerous titles in the second paragraph). -- Emsworth 23:23, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Gt Officers
It seems to be that the Great Officers have precedence over Secretaries of State, and are therefore categorised first. As for article titles, I would suggest that the article title always be used for collation. Even if one collates as "Germain, Lord George," the category will display "Germain, George, 1st Viscount." To consider the example of the second Marquess of Londonderry, it would be unusual to look under "L" and find "Castlereagh." -- Emsworth 02:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Support
Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. I appreciated it very much. If you would like to talk sometime, please drop me a note on my talk page or email me. Mike H 00:05, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Hi. You had listed yourself as interested but unable to attend this weekend's meetup. I just wanted to let you know that I cancelled it for lack of participation; it would have only been User:TheCustomOfLife and me. But we should all get together on an informal mailing list or something to plan some activity for the future. Jimbo Wales 12:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks.
Thanks for reverting my userpage! :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your support for my adminship. Jayjg 16:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Cabinets
I do not think that eighteenth century cabinets should be placed at the pages of the monarchs. George I and George II tended not to influence the composition their own Cabinets as much as the Prime Minister (the latter, for example, could not prevent the appointment of William Pitt the Elder). George III tried to influence the appointment, but failed. Lists after 1783 should be noticed on prime ministerial pages.
As to your second question: I'm not a university student (though I would hope to be one soon); I am now fifteen years old. -- Emsworth 01:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Man, all you young 'uns...at any rate, as I said, I wouldn't mind having the 1721-1783 period listed on the monarch's page, but I think it still ought to be divided up by ministry. That is to say, for George I, you'd have the initial Whig ministry dominated by Townshend (1714-1717), the first Stanhope/Sunderland ministry (1717-1718), the 2nd Stanhope/Sunderland ministry (1718-1721), the Walpole/Townshend ministry (1721-1727)... then for George II you'd have Walpole/Townshend (1727-1730), Walpole (1730-1742), Carteret (1742-1744), Pelham I (1744-1746), Bath/Granville (1746), Pelham II (1746-1754) Newcastle I (1754-1756), Pitt (1756-1757), caretaker (1757), Newcastle/Pitt (1757-1760). From George III on one might want to list by PM, I'm not sure. I think one advantage of listing on the monarchs' page is that you then don't have to worry so much about who is "really" prime minister, which is often a problem in this period. Wilmington was 1st Lord of the Treasury 1742-1743, but Carteret was running the ministry. Same with Devonshire and Pitt in 1756-1757. And then you have joint-premierships like Walpole/Townshend, Newcastle/Pitt, Newcastle/Bute, the whole weird business of Chatham's quasi-ministry that he never actually directed, and then Fox/North/Portland...Anyway, I'm open to either of way of doing things. But I think Emsworth is minimizing the amount of monarchical control. Sure, in 1746 George II couldn't keep his preferred Granville/Bath ministry in power for more than a couple of days. And sure, in 1756, he had to call on Pitt, even though he didn't like him. But at the same time, I'd venture to suggest that the king really was still head of government at this point. The king still presided over cabinet meetings, for instance. And he really did have influence over the choice of ministries. Thus we see Granville (that is, Carteret), for instance, serving as Lord President from 1751-1763. I doubt this was because the Pelhams and Pitt had any fondness for him. Bute's appointment was also due to this. Also note the dismissal of Townshend and Walpole in 1717...
On the other hand, the PM couldn't always control who his ministers were at much later dates. Thus, Russell had to include Palmerston in his cabinet, even though he hated him. At any rate, I could go either way. Certainly from Pitt the Younger on, we should have it on the PM page. john k 02:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)