User talk:Jtdirl
Earlier comments are in user talk:Jtdirl (Archive 1) user talk:Jtdirl (Archive 2) user talk:jtdirl (Archive 3)
Please leave your comments here:
If you have OSX and 20 spare Euros then you are in luck. [1] I couldn't find a download link but the GIMP is too big to dowload via a dial-up connection anyway. --mav
I don't think we're quite back at square one - we've not got name calling anyway. I have hope that this is just a little disagreement that will be amicably resolved (at any rate, the edits seem to have calmed down a bit now). Of course, I'm a hopeless optimist, and a constantly disappointed one at that ;-) --Camembert
Hi. After suffering withdrawal symptoms for the last 24 hours, I return to find that you have "sorted out" Mr Dietary Fiber. I had been thinking of appealing to you, but I didn't want to seem like a wimp. Who is he/she, then? I mistook him/her for a common-or-garden ignoramus. And do you think the name is deliberately ironic? Deb 18:16 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)
I like this quotation: "After a series of dodgy edits (names wrong, screwing up titles which they obviously didn't understand (sounds familiar!) duplicating names etc) that were undone by various people, DF moved away. The whole approach they have shown sounds very suspiciously like that practiced by VC. "
You should look at Vera's past edits to New Imperialism, when he/she was preoccupied with turning an article pertaining to a very complex and debated period of history into a "list". You summed it up nicely.
I'd like to hear more about this children of Lir myth too.
Dietary Fiber is now on an anti-capitalism and anti-US tirade in, among other places, Talk:World War II. -- Zoe
I am? Dietary Fiber
I’ve made major contributions lately that haven’t edited. I’m looking forward to a historian or social scientist of you caliber looking them over. I know that they’re not within your area of expertise, but 2/3 of them aren’t within mine either.
economy of Russia, history of Brazil, Protestant Reformation
I have to admit, the personality of this latest Lir resurrection seems the most potent yet! Discussing any complicated subject with this new offspring is just as maddening and self-defeating as ever, if not more so. Susan/Adam/Lir/Vera is even is even intensifying the anarchist crusade. It reminds me of the 1860 Nihilist movement in Russia.
Don't worry about it. It's hard keeping up with all the changes and conversations.
As you've gathered, I got the wrong end of the stick on 172 vs Vera. Sorry about that! Tannin
Ha! You had me really confused with the Whitlam picture. I thought "huh? but I just did that! Where's your beef?". Then I looked at the history, and got more confused - you seemed to have moved the image into a div and embedded it (which is what I did), but accordsing to the history you had replaced a sinple <IMAGE> tag. Eventually, the penny dropped - my shift of it to an embedded div was still on the preview screen. Doh!
As you can see, I'm in the process of doing a top to bottom re-write of the Whitlam entry. The only area where we are likely to disagree is the rights and wrongs of the dismissal. For now, I've moved that to the talk page. When I get down to that part, I'll replace it with a brief, NPOV outline of the positions for and against. As we discussed some months ago, this remains a highly controversial matter, and is best dealt with on a page of its own. I intend to move the dismissal stuff over to there - I think it's Australian Constitutional Crisis of 1975 - but if you prefer to take care of integrating the ex-Whitlam paras into that article yourself, please go right ahead. I've got plenty to keep me busy for one night just doing Gough Whitlam. (No doubt we will disagree over the tone to be taken by the ACC1975 entry, but that's a battle for another day.) Tonight I'm just aiming to get EGW into shape. Tannin 15:03 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)
---
Hey, Jtdirl! Go raibh míle maith agat for your support on the Rachel Corrie issue. I'm especially annoyed that it was removed unilaterally from the Votes for Deletion page. Somehow, I don't think it will disappear though, at least no time soon. How odd that the most prominent victim of this bitter conflict, at least here on Wikipedia, is the blonde, blue-eyed American girl who came to "help" ... Ní thuigim. Danny
- It's funnier than you think, because I'm actually Jewish. I did some work on Irish Jewish history, fell in love with the music and literature, and managed to pick up a few phrases, hoping one day to study the language full-time. Then again, J. M. Synge majored in Hebrew, so perhaps its not so funny after all. Danny
- This puzzles me. Majors and minors were an invention of the US university system. I've heard the system was introduced to make up for shortfalls in undergraduates' broader general education in a tactful way. Whatever the truth of that, it only percolated to other countries slowly; what sort of education did Synge have? Outright American, or US influenced? Or did he merely "read" Hebrew (as we technically call studying a subject at a British university) and not "major" in it? I vaguely recall he was of the Ascendancy. PML.
My maternal grandfather and his brothers, whom I have mentioned before, were reputedly given what their father thought were Jewish names to avoid sectarian problems. Thus Arnold Kerney ("Arnie Carney"?), Leopold Kerney (well before Leopold Bloom) and Mario Kerney (well, he didn't know many Jews).
On a more serious note, "From what I hear about the Vatican" - I'm trying to decode some of the more cryptic allusions in Hadrian VII, a 19th century work
- Sorry, apparently it was 1904. From a specialised bibliography at [2] we have "Rolfe, Frederick (Baron Corvo), Hadrian VII, (London: Chatto & Windus, 1904: many later reissues)... Rolfe was a Roman Catholic convert who lived on a gondola in Venice seducing Italian men. He was also obsessed with the Church. This novel is a fantasy, written in the super-intellectual language of late Victorian educated English converts, in which the narrator - a layman - is elected pope, and what he does in that position [so to speak]."
by Fr. Rolfe Baron Corvo which might have an interest for you and of which you may well have heard. PML.
Actually I haven't. Sounds interesting. Re your material grandfather, there is another spelling of their surname, Kearney, which Kerney may be a corruption of. STÓD/ÉÍRE 01:34 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
So I gather. In fact, I had wondered if "Kerney" was a variant imposed by French misunderstandings when the family emigrated there. My mother was often mistaken for Breton when not for Dutch ("Irlandaise/Hollandaise"), since "Ker-" is a common prefix for Breton names. But records show they were Kerneys before that. PML.
Astrid and Laurent (since there are other people of those names) need serious naming convention help. Should they be moved to Astrid, Princess of Belgium & Laurent, Prince of Belgium, or what? (Actually, I think I'll move them, if you think they need some other name just move 'em there!) -- Someone else 05:06 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry if I scared you with my edit to Prime Minister. I only added a link to the List of Prime Ministers of Finland. As you can see my summary was a cut-n-paste mistake (Parts of the wikipedia disclaimer seen below the edit window, I still can't understand how I managed to paste that in the summary). -- JNi 15:32 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
Your accusations on my talk page are completely misinformed. I wrote "Prime minister", with a lower-case "m" and capital "P", only when it was the title of a Wikipedia article. It is not possible with current software to begin an article title with a lower-case letter. "Computer rendering" has a capital "C" and a lower-case "r" for the same reason. I move the article from "Prime Minister" to "Prime minister" because I thought (and still think) that it's an article about prime ministers and not about Prime Ministers. Michael Hardy 02:32 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)
PS: Even the article about "e, the base of natural logarithms" begins with a capital "E", which, as mathematical notation, is technically incorrect, simply because Wikipedia will not allow it otherwise. Michael Hardy 02:32 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)
JTD, you might like to take a look at Australian Senate when you get a moment. Last time I looked at it there were several things that I questioned. I should imagine that you would be able to correct (or confirm) them off the top of your head. (I am lazy - I'd have to spend ages looking them up and cross-checking!) Tannin
I'm pleased to announce that my mega-history of the English/British coin Penny is now finished (at last!), and broken up into 8 parts. Onward to the history of the ha'penny! Arwel
You're being incredibly unjust: I never said anything about BNAA or the question of whether it is capitalized, let alone called it bad English. I said certain cases of capitalization by lawyers were deliberate bad English used as a tactic; I did not mention, nor have in mind, the BNAA act in that connection, nor do I object to the capital letters in BNAA. Michael Hardy 23:03 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)
DANGER ALERT:
Lir, this time under the incarnation of Susan Mason, might have his/her/its eyes on the history of the Soviet Union article.
Thank you for your resolute Vera-watching.
Hopefully he/she was only interested in criticizing the article. At least for now.
Why aren’t Susan Mason and Dietary Fiber banned right now? Dealing with these latest incarnations is simply unbearable.
Why not just watch the troll's contribution page, and revert all of the inappropriate changes once a day? Don't rage, don't engage, 'cause that's what this troll loves. Cyan 06:46 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
As you were involved in the edit war in some way, I preferred using a version that was not by you. The history is kept and when all issues are sorted out and the page is unprotected again any other version can be made active by any wikipedian -- JeLuF 07:35 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
Well - although there seems to be some evidence that all these people are one and the same, it's only as "Dietary Fiber" that I've seriously fallen out with him/her. I guess the proof of the pudding is in whether these people are ever logged in at the same time. If they can converse with one another, we should challenge them to produce an edit conflict. Deb 08:35 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
Look at this Lir/Vera thinks he/she's clever:
Posted on the Page of Dietary Fiber: "Hey, do you know what is the deal with zoe, 172, and jtdirl? Susan Mason"
- Do you lack the ability to appreciate ordinary politenss? (Rhetorical question.) What I said was unjust was your attributing someone else's writings to me. Now you're sidestepping that point and not denying it, but trying to change the subject and attacking a straw man. Michael Hardy 22:38 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
There are clear grammatical rules for
- I know and care far more about clear grammatical rules than you ever will. Michael Hardy 22:38 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
Don’t let these people get you down. They’re just jealous. 172
Is Zoe practicing reverse psychology on Susan/Dietary? It might work. 172
I agree entirely that where there's controversy (was Nicholas II the last tsar? was Mikhail? was Alexis?) it's best to be non-committal <G> 'specially in short lists. Someday I'll get a grown-up browser, too. BTW, I thought briefly about trying to straighten out the List of Saxon dukes, kings, and emperors, which is wrong in just TOO many ways, last night but was afraid it would be seized on by the resident chameleon and certainly didn't want to die the 'death by inches' that that would entail. -- Someone else 01:47 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
- I completely agree with your analysis of who ACTUALLY was tsar. But this being Wikipedia, once that can of worms gets opened, you wind up saying Who says X was, Who says Y was, etc. rather than who actually was. Fortunately no one much seems to make an issue of it at present, but let someone drop in who's a rabid "Nicholas-was-a-martyr-and-a-saint-and-Alexis-is-his-one-true-heir-because-the-Fundamental-Laws-can't-be-altered-because-a-sacred-oath-was-taken-and-they-forbid-abdication" person and THEN what happens<G>! -- Someone else
I'm on a Mac, but a very very old one, running system 8.6, so Safari is, I think, out of the question. I'm hoping to upgrade soon though, if I can conquer my fear of a new operating system long enough. -- Someone else 02:24 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
About JJ and copyright images: yes, there could be a problem. He's only been around two weeks, and he's been editing prolifically during that time, so it would be a pity to scare him off. We'll just have to see if we can talk some sense into him. -- Tim Starling 04:50 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
What's this Black Widow controversy? It seems stranger than that regarding Lir/Vera. 172
Beats me. Black widow seems like DW on prozac! Rude, highly opinionated but doesn't threaten to strangle people with their own guts! But beyond that, I don't know, though Black Widow does appear to be getting worse lately (maybe they need to up the strength of their tablets, or take them more often!!!) STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:40 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
I may have just opened a major war with DW. See the mailing list. -- Zoe
Huh? You mean she's not Saint Rachael? Why am I always the last to know? Tannin
Nice analysis of the Rachel Corrie worship. -- Zoe
Ditto. And, re: the "hidden message", I usually look at updates in the diff, so of course, the message was immediately obvious to me. Thus, the tin foil hat reference. ;) -- John Owens
I'm completely with you in not wanting all "cars" to become "automobiles", but don't forget that the car article is essentially a disambiguation page - the link ought to go to automobile (which is where the content is) even if the text in the article says "car" (ie, [[automobile|car]] is often the way to go). --Camembert
- In those cases where "car" has been completely replaced and it's not an Ameircan subject I completely agree with you - I only saw your edit to Rowan Atkinson where you had (mistakenly, I guess) replaced [[automobile|car]] with [[car]]. Just wanted to point it out in case you thought car was a proper article. --Camembert
- I'm sorry, Jtdirl -- car is at the top of Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, and I'm just trying to disambiguate. I honestly didn't mean to step on any international toes! As Camembert said, there is virtually no information at "car", which to my understanding is a slangier and less precise word than automobile. Does automobile not mean "car", and vice versa, in the UK? If not, can you please add an explanation to that effect to the "car" page? I would have appreciated some discussion on my talk page or the Talk:Car before your angry decision to revert -- I'm a reasonable and well-educated contributor, and as far as I know I've never offended you in the past. Please respond, Catherine 23:49 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
In ordinary practice today, people in the UK will mostly understand "car" if someone says "automobile", but it will halt their flow of thought. Also, the term "car" is in fact wider than an automotive thing, as in the Duke of Wellington's funeral car, designed by Prince Albert (and it shows!). That's not a quibble since things like that are going to show up in reference places like this. One more thing: while "carriage" is the standard term for what the USA calls a "car", on a railway, there is an exception. The London Underground was heavily influenced by US engineering practices, so those are called "cars" in the trade. PML.
What I have suggested to Catherine is to use [[automobile|car]] rather than automobile. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:03 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
- Thank you the clarification. I thought I was correct, and I'll be happy to change now that I know I'm wrong. I really do try not to be an ignorant American. Catherine 00:07 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
I would have said DK/Black Widow, JTD. Same editing style, same writing style. Same mania for self-aggrandisment. Same sort of combination of literacy, detailed knowledge, arrogant unconcern for other users, and inability to realise error. But I haven't considered the matter carefully - sdeeing as they are all banned, the question is moot.
Wonderful bit of rhetoric on Zoe's page, by the way. I enjoyed that. :) Tannin