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) User talk:jtdirl (Archive 11) User talk:jtdirl (archive 12)

Please leave your comments here:

Sorry folks for the previous size of the page. Due to technical problems it could not be archived until now.

Just noticed that you warned a user about edits to pages about the royal family. I reverted one to the page for the Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. I am only vaguely familiar with and issue with a persistant vandal who disrupts pages discussing the royal family. Could this be the same individual? I didn't know if you knew (I am only barely aware of it). Just thought you might help keep an eye out. By the way, I read about the dispute regarding the papal tiara before I actually registered for Wikipedia. Your article is what first brought me to Wikipedia. I had been looking for some information on the coronation and installation of the Holy Father and your article is the one that came up. I am glad the tiara article and the Vicarius Filii Dei article survived. Hope to see you around! Psy Guy 17:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Benedict and "enthroned"

Fair cop on the enthroned/installed bit. My bad. But does the word "enthroned" need to be made a link on that page, when the only real text at that link is "Enthroned is a Black Metal band from Belgium."? Seems to me that that's not really what people are after clicking on the link in the Benedict page. Perhaps removing the link in the word "enthroned?" --Golfhaus 06:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Telling us so

You certainly did tell us so about styles making for problems. That said, I'm not convinced this is disastrous. It's basically one user making a big fuss. If it weren't about styles, it'd be about something else. I don't think the basic argument was that nobody would make a fuss about styles, so much as that if putting styles in was otherwise appropriate, it was silly to exclude them simply because someone might hypothetically object on dubious grounds. At any rate, I imagine TD will tire himself out and move on to something else... john k 06:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope

Thanks for the note. I basically reverted everything that user did, without really researching it much because he/she had been a troublemaker. See [1] including the Popes are monkeys edit. Feel free to change it to whatever norms are used. Fuzheado | Talk 12:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question for you

Hi there Jtdirl. I don't understand a reversal you made. Please see my question at: Talk:Style (manner of address) Thanks. Quill 07:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bendict XVI

I made the change requested. What browser are you using, btw? I've edited with Netscape 7, IE 6 and Firefox 1, and never had any problems. BTW, my browser shows the BXVI page as only 54K. john k 02:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Amendments to the Constitution

Can I take it that I'm no longer being accused of damaging Wikipedia? In any case I don't think your hostile tone is very constructive. I'm aware that you're not supposed to do cut-and-pastes. As I explain on the talk page it's intended as an easily reversible interim measure.

You wrote "if you had waited thirty seconds til I had added in the explanation to the talk page" and "next time check why someone has moved a page". You are putting the cart before the horse here. The practice on Wikipedia as I'm sure you know is to argue for a move, persuade other editors that it is a good idea and then go ahead with it. You don't make a difficult to reverse change first and then give your reasons after the fact.Iota 03:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok obviously I've caused a technical mess with the talkpages so guilty as charged on that front. I've not been on Wikipedia as long as you and I'm not an administrator so it was an honest mistake. Iota 03:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I lost the head but apart from anything else it jammed my browser and I lost 4 hours of work on a new article.

That's alright. Those are definitely mitigating circumstances. Iota 17:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Self-reference rights

I certainly maintain my position against ever calling the True Catholic Church the "true Catholic Church" unless (as is the specific purpose of that orthography) one is declaring them to be legitimate at the expense of the entity in Rome the overwhelming majority of humanity considers to be the true Catholic Church...but I note that User:Samuel J. Howard defends his rewriting and renaming of Traditional Catholic to Traditionalist Catholic because "it doesn't matter what people call themselves." Have it out between you,OK?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 05:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope Infobox

FYI - I really liked the new Pope Infobox so I have proposed that it be used for all religious leades on Infobox policy. There have been no objections so far (since Friday). If that continues I plan on helping to update the articles for the new Infobox. If you have comments, concerns please discuss there Trödel|talk 17:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Howdy

Hey, when did you come back? Haven't seen you around in AGES. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Pope's CoA

Looks like you've missed my link to Vatican Radio English website, which confirms the CoA: http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/index.asp . The CoA with a mitre instead of tiara and other elements of the CoA were also confirmed in the radio itself today. Ausir 02:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CfD: Category: Heir Apparent

Hi, you did some work on this category a few weeks ago, and it's been nominated for deletion. Care to vote? Sympleko 10:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

23-F

I believe I have solved the problem through a radical rewrite. If not, by all means replace the dispute template, and explain your reasons on the talk page. In the future please don't put my contribs name in your edit summary when I act in good faith and there is no talk on the discussion page; that is bad faith, and if you wanted to react like that you should have transfered the relevant Tejero discussion to 23-F, SqueakBox 00:59, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree it wasn't encyclopedic. Hope it is now? --SqueakBox 03:06, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, you. Back for good this time? LOL Deb 12:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered if that new pope would suck you back in. Deb 19:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to add a welcome back -- was a pleasant surprise to see your sig around the old place again! — Catherine\^talk 08:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Hey, if you want to do an RfC for Lulu, go right ahead. I will support you, since his editing has gone a bit too far, in my view. Zscout370 (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been editing much lately on these papal matters (got kind of burned out), but I too would definitely support your arguments. I think that some of his "styles" have bordered on vandalism. I'm not too sure how to go about doing a RfC, but I'm sure someone can figure out how. Regards, Bratsche^{talk random} 03:09, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Elections in Ireland, etc

Thanks for giving me the word on this discussion. Cannot believe that the people who previously voted knew so little about a subject they voted for!!! Hopefully this will attract some actual Irish people on the one hand, and help the first voters to learn a little along the way. Fergananim

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles

I choose not to play by those rules. The issue is not sufficiently important to warrant the time taken to learn that voting system. Incidentally, I voted in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles several days ago, and have edited many other pages since; you could have made it easier for me to tell what you were talking about by linking to the page.-gadfium 01:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I've changed my vote accordingly. Proteus (Talk) 12:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Ditto me. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

And me. Wow, stuff in the US is a bit easier. One vote, one person (at least for more local offices). I guess the Electoral College is kind of confusing, but not as much as the abovementioned vote. Thanks for the info. Bratsche^{talk random} 00:00, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yeh, it sounds fun actively bashing with you vote those who you desperately want to lose. Too bad I'm so ignorant of UK politics. I really don't know the difference between Sinn Fein and the Labour party, or how any of them correspond to American politics. Oh well, I still have time to learn. Thanks for your help. BTW, I like your new sig colors :). Bratsche^{talk random} 03:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

All I can say is I can't be bother. If people choose to use such complicated and almost stupid system, then it's their problem. I don't have time during my exams and all to worry about things like that. Democracy is an illusion anyway. -- KTC 11:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks for pointing out the voting system to me anyhow. -- KTC 11:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, if you need any help or protection against the "vote coralling" accusations, just ask. I'd be glad to protect your right to inform others, and my right to change my vote after understanding a unnecessarily complicated system. Thanks, Bratsche^{talk random} 03:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I posted something on the talk page. Someone should talk to them about no personal attacks. Bratsche^{talk random} 22:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Leifern

HI JT, regarding your block of User:Leifern, I unblocked him because he hadn't made any edits since my warning to him on his talk page. Hope this is okay with you. I don't like to block people for 3RR without warning them first. If he does it again, I'll block him myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

de Gaulle and the Commonwealth

See Talk:Commonwealth of Nations for a query on your edit about de Gaulle and the Commonwealth. If you have a good source, it would be nice to know it. --Macrakis 23:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Westminster System

Please look at what articles are in Category:Westminster System. Other than the Irish ones it contains articles relating to the Westminster system in general, not the specific national variants to it. Moreover not one of the articles you added even mentions the Westminster System, which is generally a requirement to be a category. Wikipedia:Categorization asks "is the category subject prominently mentioned in the article?" If the answer is no then the "category is probably inappropriate." - SimonP 23:58, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I created and populated that category and I can assure you the decision was deliberate. It previously was a list of the elements that can be considered a part of the Westminster System. Something that I, at least, found useful. What you seem to be interested in is a category of entities using the Westminster System, which is a different idea, but one that perhaps deserves its own category. - SimonP 00:10, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who listed the other one for deletion, but I suggested the pages be moved to a new category. What about moving those pages to Category:Irish entities based on the Westminster System? This would seem to satisfy both our interests. - SimonP 00:48, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

No. The whole point is that they link into an international system, and so must be linked to the international system, not a country-specific one. They should of course link to WS, as should Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. It isn't your category to define. But if you want to move your stuff to a tightly defined category, by ahead. But WS is an open category that anything related to the WS can and should be linked to. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 00:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I just feel that it is useful to keep a distinction between the elements of and the entities that use the WS. Might it not just be best to have Category:Politics of the Republic of Ireland, as well as the politics cats for other countries, as a subcategory of Category:Westminster System as the entire political infrastructure is based on the WS? - SimonP 00:48, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Also I feel you should watch you language more closely. When disagree with an edit you are much to fast to call it vandalism, nonsense, or idiotic. You have previously been cautioned for such behaviour and being aggressive will not help you get your way. - SimonP 00:32, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_17#Category:Irish_entities_based_on_the_Westminster_System
Djegan 21:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel Gibson, Traditionalist Catholic

Hey, could you take a look at the articles below? Apparently there's a minor Traditionalist Catholic war going on. I've tried to reconcile and NPOV things as best I can, but I'd also like opinions on what to do with the third article: it seems to be a noteworthy topic, but there is really very little information about it available, and I also think the title itself is POV. If more info can be unearthed, I would suggest a move. Otherwise, I was thinking VfD for non-notability.

• Mel Gibson
• Hutton Gibson
• Holy Family sect

Votes on Wikipedia

This is one of my complaints - those that know how to manipulate the system do it often and to push their POV in how things should be structured. I personally think the crazy voting system would work well to identify the option most likely to reach concensus in an up or down vote - which is what he started to do - and I would vote for it rather than not have formal addresses included at all. However, because he is forcing his view without full concensus I am probably going to change my vote. The problem is that the vote does not overturn existing practice unless it reaches concensus. The same thing happened with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints someone made a page move and then blocked a return page move and forced a vote to move it to The, even though over 60% voted in favor of the move - concensus was not "reached" so it had to stay where it was - this was one of my first expereinces on Wikipedia and it tainted my view of the processes. I won't break 3RR but I will be happy to revert a couple times a day. Trödel|talk 12:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree totally. It is a blatent abuse of the vote and the highjacking of the results. But somehow I am not surprised. I will do the same. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 21:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Did you know?

Lulu and/or Whig

I know it's a hassle, but would you be willing to support an RfC on Lulu and/or Whig? Please bear in mind that any such move is likely to lead to Lulu and Whig bringing an immediate RfC against anyone certifying such an RfC. However, these two users, since they have re-appeared, appear to have made few actual improvements to WP, but to have taken up lots and lots of people's time. We all have disagreements from time to time, but my patience with those who do not contribute usefully to WP (as is unfortunate the case with Whig and Lulu) is wearing thin. Kind regards, jguk 20:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a tricky topic, since I don't know what else we could bring against them other than WP:POINT. It's true that they've wasted a ton of time (all I've been doing lately is surrounding the style subject), but I don't think that's a necessary cause for a RfC. It just ticks me off that Whig is acting like the neutral king of policy, while in reality almost all of his edits are changing the styles and style-related pages. What he's doing now is totally ridiculous, like you said. Having a vote to ratify a vote that included a confusing voting method completely unknown to Wikipedia is just dumb. The original vote passed with a 53% majority; anyone will tell you that there's no consensus. Some of the ratification votes now are sort of worrisome: they act as ratificaiton is is the lesser of two evils, and that proposal three is the best choice. What they don't know, in my opinion, is that they're actually voting on consensus of 53%, and setting a precedent for 53% consensus in the future. Let's pray that it doesn't pass. Regards, Bratsche^{talk random} 21:43, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

It would be pretty fun to have a contrived RfC against me whose argument was WP:Point, which is not even WP policy. Looking at the current vote, I think it will probably be demoted from "semi-policy" to "non-policy." As the only one here who hasn't abused the VfD process, I pretty well smell like roses.

There's a good joke: Doc says "you have two weeks to live"; patient say "I want a 2nd opinion!"; Doc says "You're ugly too."... maybe you can put in an RfC against me on the grounds I'm ugly too. We can argue whether I meet the appearance requirements for WP.

Actually there are some even better jokes I can tell, but I'm afraid the discussants lack the academic background for the Anna Freud and Hegel jokes. Sorry. - The Dishonorable Dr. Lulu...

revert

I don't know what happened - I didn't mean to revert that. --Erauch 03:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

RfCs on Whig/Lulu

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and add your comments and, if you feel able to, please endorse them too. Kind regards, jguk 19:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Styles Vote on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI

I have no idea on how the vote is going to go, but I hope this can give us a clear bench mark on what we use for the article. Are we going to reach the 80% percent consensus some people claim around here, no. However, we will be close, a hell of a lot closer than Whig's survey. From the math I did today, there was 19 Support and 6 Against. That makes 25. Take 19, divide it by 25, and you get .76 percent. Whig's survey only had around 53ish. I personally think more people are participating in our survey too. However, I want to ask you if what I am doing is right, and if you wish, comment about the way the votes are being collected. Also, do you think it is right of me for staying out of the survey. The reason why is that if I vote one way, I will get many people just to vote the opposite, since they might see me POV-pushing one way or another. If there is anything else I should do, just let me know. Also, if you want to take my survey method to other contested pages, lets do that. However, my personal feeling is go to these two pages: Queen Elizabeth II and Kim Jong-il. Since Whig used those leaders in his examples for his vote, lets use those pages as the test dummies in my vote. We can compare notes and see what is going on with the use of styles, period. I do not think a blanket policy will work on everyone, since some people earned their titles by office, others by a cult following. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Category rules

If you dislike Category:Irish entities based on the Westminster System please nominate it on cfd, it is improper procedure to simply empty a disputed category. - SimonP 15:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I waited several days for your comment on the proposla and took your silence as assent. If you disagree with the category then please list it on CfD. Stop simply emptying the category unilaterally. Note that CfD states "please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision." - SimonP 20:36, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Australian Head of State

The Australian Constitution gives the Governor-General many important prerogative powers in his own right. The extent of his representation of the monarch is limited, see here. Pete 00:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The Australian Governor-General is a nominal chief executive, in that he is advised by the Prime Minister in almost everything he does. Nobody is disputing this. However, you can't say that he is merely the Queen's representative, because this simply is not true. The role of the Governor-General has increased over the years as that of the Queen has declined. Pete 01:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You say The Queen, as lawyers as distinquished as George Winterton have made abundantly clear, is head of state As a matter of fact, Professor Winterton holds the "two heads of state" position(here), but perhaps you have a recent source that shows he has changed his mind...? Pete 02:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a checkable source that shows he has changed his mind and now holds the "Queen as sole head of state" view? Pete 02:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Not again, surely, Skyring? Don't you get bored?  ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:11, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nice to be back home and have the Internet on tap all day every day. And it's a lot of fun to watch people dance around when I ask them for a source and they don't have one. Pete 03:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I thought I would give you an opportunity to reconsider your certification of the RfC in regards to my account. I have posted a response and while I do think this erroneous account was in extremely bad taste, I can understand that you may have subscribed your certification in the heat of some passion and did not stop to consider the statement carefully. I think there are substantial defects in regards to both the statement itself and your certification and I do not think that either of us need to keep this albatross around. If you want to proceed in spite of my response and my request here, I think it would demonstrate bad faith on your part, and I would prefer that our disagreements were more friendly. Thank you for your consideration. Whig 11:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Jtdirl, I would just like to convey to you my sincere gratitude for your efforts countering Skyring’s obfuscation at the Government of Australia article. Although I would hate to be unkind, I just feel so utterly deflated after reading through what would have to the greatest display of idiocy (or just plain thick-headedness) I’ve ever come across at Wikipedia. Hopefully, he’ll realise his foolishness and return whencesoever he came. Thanks again, Cyberjunkie 16:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Ratificaiton on honorifics

I put together what I hope is a neutrally presented view - would appreciate if you copyedit it to make it more neutral where possible. I hope that pointing out the issues will help avoid them in the future. However, I am frustrated with the changed presentation of the vote from the Survey to the Ratification and doubt I have been as neutral as I should be. Can you take a look? Trödel|talk 23:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

How to sign reverts?

As a user of the syntax, can you tell me how to generate the 'rv edits by [x] to prev ver by y' edit summary, in a quick way. Or do you do it the tedious way of going back to the edit history and noting both user-names and typing them in and typing in the link syntax for the first one. It seems too common a format to be just typed by everyone, but I don't find any notes on it in Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version

Insulting and Provocative Behaviour

Just a quick note. Could I ask you to please tone down your behaviour? It's hardly professional and it's a poor example. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but let's have light rather than heat, OK? Pete 01:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look at your supposed rebuttal. Could you provide edit links, as requested, so that the accuracy of these statements may be checked, please? You've made it pretty complicated, and it's liable to get more so as I respond to you, so it you make it clear who said what right from the start, that's going to be a big help. I must thank you for providing a response at all - I thought you might wimp out. Pete 03:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Ian Paisley UUP?

Hi! I read (with some amusement) the jokes on your user page. However, am I missing the point of the joke when I say that Ian Paisley is DUP? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 12:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

triregno.jpg

Hello,

I just noticed you asked me on 7 May why I have removed this image from commons. I asked on the discussion page why this image is thought to be PD, but I don't have removed it: I would not be able to do it as I am not an administrator on commons. Somebody else has removed it, not me.

[2] you can see who has deleted it and here the reason [3].

Sorry you have thought it was me.

Btw, are you sure fair use images are accepted on commons? I always thought they weren't. Jyp 14:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This image was requested for deletion on April 28 on Commons:Deletion requests by User:Ausir. The uploader was notified the same day, see User talk:Danielm. Uploader claimed the image was public domain and had added a URL, [4], The web link did not contain any license information.

After 10 days the image was deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/Archives03.

All deletions are based on the Commons:Deletion guidelines. WikiCommons do not allow "fair use" images, press photos or photos with questionable licenses. WikiCommons works independently of other Wikimedia projects and it is neither required or possible to check the 199 different Wikipedias if they use a particular image.

Regards, Thuresson, May 23, 23:56 CET

Lulu

I already did. :) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Congrats

Well, looks like both of our articles Papal Tiara and Hero of Belarus became Featured last night. If I was in Ireland, I would be getting a drink or two right now to celebrate. Sadly, I have to stick with Pepsi. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote on policy positions at Government of Australia

I note that Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Wikipedia:Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate.

My proposed policy position is this:

• That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:

1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy

2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia

3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.

• That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
• Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed. Adam 23:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to override your previous edit, but I am sick of this silliness and I want to get it resolved. I hope you agree. Adam 04:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that a better course of action would be to take Skyring to the ArbCom, the issue with Skyring has been going on for months. I have made a page in my User:Petaholmes/RfA/Skyring/userspace to prepare the case. Please fell free to add your comments. --nixie 05:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Camilla

You're right, I hadn't noticed the other silly change. Kind regards, jguk 19:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Conas atá tú?

How'r ya? The Irish Wikipedia ga is in need of contributers and articles. You clearly have plenty of info about all things Ireland and other, would you be interested in contributing to it? We've got 778 articles at the moment and we're pushing for 1,000 but it's a slow course when so few people contribute. Even if you don't have great Irish, people with better Irish can clean it up for you. If you need a dictionary, there's a good one at www.englishirishdictionary.com Bí ann! - Dalta 21:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure

And once again, well done! A more detailed response to your engaging comment is here. Thank you for it, I enjoyed reading it very much. Yours, El_C 03:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

RfAr

Please note that a Request for Arbitration [5] has been opened regarding the prefixed style NPOV dispute, the RfC which was opened with respect to my account, and personal attacks made and restored by certain parties. I have named you as an involved party and therefore I am notifying you of this RfAr in order that you may respond accordingly. Whig 12:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you aware that Lulu deleted part of your statement because he disagreed with it [6]? Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

You might wanna look at this

At the Economic History of the southern Irish state, they want to change the name to E.H. of the Republic of Ireland, making it factually wrong, similar to the History of the Republic of Ireland page. - Dalta 16:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Stop blocking widely used IPs for long periods of time

You've blocked User:131.111.8.96 for 60 hours. Please don't do this. Some guy sent out an email to about 100 administrators yesterday because you did this. If you need to block to stop vandalism, block it for at most an hour or two. CryptoDerk 17:04, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

It's only one IP, so block it for an hour or so, then go on. Keep in mind that since it's such a highly watched page, other administrators will be on the vandalism very quick. CryptoDerk 17:35, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I feel I am being harassed

Hi again, Jtdirl. I feel I am unfairly harassed. [7] (and [8]) Please see this and comment if you wish. Thanks. El_C 22:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks on Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

I have to think that given your amount of education and apparently responsible occupation, there is some kernel of maturity within you. I am imploring you here to leave off on the ongoing personal attacks on me. And even leave off on the ongoing gaming of WP admin mechanisms to harass folks you disagree with.

1. Yes, I'm utterly mystified at how you can continue to be so dead-wrong on the styles issue.
2. Yes, I'm not going to be happy at the vindidictive and spurious use of RfCs, VfDs, RfArs and whatnot you've engaged in.
3. No, I don't expect or hope to become buddy-buddy with you.

But despite that, will you please, please, please just stop engaging in so g-d many personal attacks against me, even on pages I would not otherwise have any involvement in? Please?! I don't want you to like me, I don't care if you respect me, I just wish you would stop the ad hominem attacks.

And yes, I also know how to engage in sophistry and pedantry, pretending not to say what you are actually saying, and all that nonsense. I don't do so because I choose not to. Frankly, a Ph.D. in history doesn't even light a candle to one in philosophy in terms of acquired sophistical skills. But I also know how to read what's actually going on with such ever-so-coy attacks. It is not amusing, it's merely vindictive and petty.

And no, I am not going to write any RfCs or RfArs, or whatever the administrative acronym du jour is to respond to your behavior. Please don't take that as carte blanche to litter WP with nasty quips about me. Take it as an invitation to exhibit some maturity, and simply refrain from the disruptive behavior.

Please! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:33, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Your comments, please!

I'd like you to comment on this page out of the Australian Commonwealth Government Directory for March 1997. This is the Commonwealth Government, in its own directory, saying that the Governor-General is the Head of State, without qualification. I am not saying that I support the opinion, merely demonstrating that there are different opinions.Pete 06:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Blocked?

Why are you blocking me? I know the number (207.200.116.132) AOL gives me frequently is sometimes used by a vandal(s), but I assure you I am a responsible user. Please release the block. WBardwin 17:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I thought. I can write to you and edit on Bubonic plague but not on my user pages?? This mistaken blocking has happened before, but not like this. Please take a look and release the block. WBardwin 17:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sure, this time! WBardwin 17:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think your Irish Vandal might be back using 71.112.231.198. See High King of Ireland. Placed a snippy note on "Black Plague" as well. Good luck! WBardwin 20:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA Skyring

I've put up a page os evidence realting mostly to edits in the main namspace of Government of Australia, if you have anything to add or know about similar behaviour by him on another page please add it. --nixie 02:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Darth Benedict

It's a talk page. And I never said it was true, moron. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:59, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Signature

Hi! Would you be prepared to tell me your secret recipe for formating it? I would add a Slovenian flag, as I have been scolded for using bad English and am not prepared to explain on every page at length that I am not an American. Your autograph also has nice fonts and colors. Of course I would not copy you, just would like to learn in general how to format my signature. The instructions on meta are not very usable. Many thanks! --Eleassar777 15:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite simple; this user has simply inserted an image into his signature. While we do not have official policy against this (nor would I suggest it), it's strongly discouraged. As I like to mention, my signature is at the very limit of acceptability, and some would say beyond it.

If you want specific tips for customizing your sig, please come to my talk page. — Xiong熊talk* 16:36, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

Lenihan....

Ever thought about adding 'bringing down political dynasties' to the vices list on your user page :p --Kiand 14:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) (another Duffy, althought not nessacerily related)

Nine Famous Irishmen

Hi, I stumbled upon Nine Famous Irishmen. I went to VfD as the title is hopless and the style anecdotal. But it may need moving and clean-up rather than deletion. I felt it badly needed an Irish expert to take a look. --Doc (?) 23:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the Irish version of those chain mails about the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Among other things, Australia didn't exist until 1901, so it's hard to see how it could have had a prime minister 27 years before that. john k 00:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Charles Gavan Duffy was Premier of Victoria, not Prime Minister of Australia. And he was not transported. Adam 01:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Papal Tiara

Hey, it is on the front page as Today's FA. Congrats. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep, it looks real nice. Great job! Bratsche^{talk random} 17:43, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Papal tiara

That may be a good idea. I believe that the papal tiara article is on the front page, is it not? It should be protected anyway in that case. However, this particular vandal was probably targeting the article just to be annoying, as he vandalized quite a few other articles as well. --Chanting Fox 19:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RE: again

I completely agree. I find SimonP a very aggressive editor, constantly deleting and reverting other people's work as he sees fit, even when he is in the minority. As you may or may not know, he removed all the Commonwealth and Commonwealth Realm templates from the country pages, despite many objections from different people, including yourself. There is a clear view by many that templates such as the Crown template, and the Commonwealth templates are a good navigation tool for related articles, and attempts at removing them should be resisted. Astrotrain 21:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Seiges of Galway

Hi! Just wondering if you would be interested in contributing something to this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seiges_of_Galway - which is still in progress, or spreading the word on it to any you think might like to see it. The eras of Irish history I am working on don't seem to have too many contributers, and I would very much welcome any input. Cheers. Fergananim 5th June 2005.

TfD

Thanks for the heads-up. I couldn't think of anything to add to what you said, but I voted to keep. We don't want this to become like the German wikipedia. Mackensen (talk) 22:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I've had a look at the template, and I must say - it does seem somewhat big. For most of the articles on crowns it takes up at least half the article space on screen. I also question whether a reader of some of the articles listed might be interested in some of the other articles listed in the template. That said, I do think this is more a question of moderating the size of the template rather than outright deletion. Kind regards, jguk 22:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Constitutional monarchy

Hello, Jtdirl. Might I request your comments on Talk:British monarchy? User:Stevenzenith seems to insist that the Queen is not a constitutional monarch, but exercises actual power. -- Emsworth 19:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Crown Template

Thank you for the heads-up on the template; I have voiced my opinions on TfD. Personally, I think templates are the way to go. I hate lists in most cases; they are unwieldy and I don't like to dig though a whole mess of info in order to find the link that I need. I think in the future, I will be keeping an active eye on both TfD and CfD, so we can stop this phasing out of good templates from happening. Regards, Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:46, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Irish articles

Much as I would like another opportunity to smite the egregious Skyring, I think I will keep out of Irish politics, a subject I don't claim to know much about (apart from elections). The last time I looked at History of Ireland I thought it was so awful I was tempted to attempt a rewrite, but fortunately prudence prevailed. I appreciate your efforts to have Skyring put down, however. By the way, how do you come to know so much about Australian constitutional matters? Do you have an antipodean connection, as does much of Hibernia? Adam 23:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Crowns and the others in the series

This is an excellent series of templates, keep it up! :) Four minor quibbles, that may or may not be deliberate decisions on your part: (1) There is no link that I can see to the main article on crowns. I think that would be good. (2) there are currently hanging "|"s after Papal Tiara and Crown of Charles, Prince of Wales - I think it would look better if these were scrapped (I thought they were only necessary between entries). I would be bold and do it myself, but since you clearly know what you're doing, I wondered if it was deliberate. (3) There's no "edit" button for the template. The {{ed}} template makes it much easier for users to edit templates, and I think that's probably a good thing (after all, it's deliberately been made easy enough to edit a page, so why not templates too?) (4) The template links into template space at the bottom. This makes a degree of sense, but is also a tad ugly? I am guessing that all the templates in your series have main articles associated with them (if not I guess it would be easy enough to make a stub). I think it would be "nicer" to link to that article instead, and the template will presumably be found at the bottom of the page in a TOC-type role for that subject. I do understand why you might like the "clean" presentation of a template displayed in template-space! But it does seem weird to navigate readers into template space... usually I think of that as a bit "back-end", unlike article space for reading and category space for browsing. Here is a radical compromise suggestion: as you have rightly pointed out elsewhere, "list" articles are generally pretty awful. They do exist, however, and lie in the main article space. What would be wrong with an article entitled, e.g. "Crowns topics" which consisted entirely of your crowns template (with possibly a very brief introduction to crowns in general)? It would have the advantage of the "clean" presentation of your template displayed in template space, but also it would be displayed in the main article space (which seems navigationally preferable) and, should you want to, it could be categorized into the appropriate category too. The big disadvantage is that it is being displayed "further from source" which makes editing a bit harder... but that could be largely allayed by adding an edit button to the template itself! Anyhow, I reiterate, they are 4 minor quibbles, and your templates are a pleasure to navigate by, as well a catalyst for article-creation, so thanks a lot :) --131.111.8.101 21:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

News presenter

Hi. I'd appreciate it if you could please respond to the discussion at Talk:News anchor – I'm looking at going ahead with the merge/rearranging as it's been a week without any further comeback. violet/riga (t) 10:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Skyring RfA Evidence

Could you please respond to my comments about a falsehood in your evidence in this matter. The way you evade notification of errors in your material lends no confidence that your credibility. Pete 10:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I forgot about the evidence page, esp. Pete Skyring's continued editing of my own comments in T:GoA. I will attend to it (compiling the pertinent diffs) soon, and I thank Skyring for inadvertantly reminding me of this matter (it slipped my mind). El_C 00:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Griffith

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that i uploaded Arthur Griffith image to commons here. --DiamondDave 21:31, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Skyring edits

Hi, Jtdirl. Please make sure to examine closely every edit Skyring makes which involves content hitherto submitted by yourself, so as to keep any positive fixes. I have warned him against making any further personal attacks in edit summaries, so if he intends to be your proofreader, from now on it should be an impersonal enough of a process. If there is anything I can do to help, don't hesitate. Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C 05:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since he has unpredictably acted in badfaith as your proofreader, I am calling for him to be sanctioned. E;_C 10:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Irish Times Poll

Sorry Man, but I only, to my knowledge, removed it once. I didn't think it was that major a deal, considering that it's a Poll based on a referendum that we might not even be voting in, and it's a poll in the Irish Times, a paper known to get it's polls completely wrong. On my radio show after the elections we read out the Predictions printed in the Irish Times as a gag, because they were so amazingly wrong. One thing that sticks out, because it was my area, is that Brian Hayes was going to Walk home, and The last seat would be a clash between Rabitte and Crowe!

Do you really think Brussels expected a yes here? I mean.. we rejected the Amsterdam treaty, for Gods sake.. and that was almost nothing. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• I getcha, sorry bout that earlier man. Do you really tink there will be a referendum ? i don't. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• • yeah, thats pretty much how i see it. Which is a shame, because I love a good referendum. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Whig and Lulu

Whig has been arguing against HIV at Talk:AIDS/NPOV dispute. His opinions semm remarkably similar to Lulu's. Furthermore, David Mertz is a [ http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=David+Mertz+Open+Voting+Consortium&meta= member] of the Open Voting Consortium, who implement Condorcet voting. This casts doubt on Whig's claim not to know David Mertz outside Wikipedia. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Saville Commission of Inquiry

Hi. If you can remember, I was helped by you in Nov 2004 in writing Irish related articles in the Heb Wiki. A question was raised there that I can not find an easy answer to, and I thought you might help. Was there Catholic representation in the Saville Commission of inquiry (of the Bloody Sunday events). If there was - who were the catholic representatives and who appointed them? For some reasons this question has significance in internal Israeli political disputes. Thank you for your attention. Amir. [9].

Hi. sorry for being a little pushy, but I really need an answer... Thanks. you can answer in my En wiki talk page. Almog 12:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harassment

I'll support you, he briefly tried wikistalking me too after I put up the harassment evidence, but didn't follow up with the personal attacks. I'm not sure why it hasn't come up in the voting on the current case. --nixie 06:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the edits Skyring has made to the articles you mention, since they are not within my areas of expertise and I have enough disputes to be going along with. I am also puzzled as to why he has decided to harrass you and nixie but has left me alone, given that I have a longer history of disputes with him than you do. However, I will support anything that will shut him down. Adam 08:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jim, you don't think that your own behaviour leaves you open to a charge of hypocrisy? Look at your recent contributions - you've been bad-mouthing me all over WP and checking out my edits. The simple fact is that once I started looking at your edits I found a fruitful source of errors, far more rewarding than patrolling RC. Nixie is likewise a good source, but she sticks to minor spelling errors. My edits are there for all to see - what pushes my buttons is finding errors and fixing them, and if you don't want me (or anyone else) to fix your errors, then don't make 'em. Do what I do - I go over my material and proof-read it. I've told you this before, but it seems you don't like good honest advice.

I don't bother with Adam's stuff because as far as I can see he takes pains to be accurate, concise and wikistyled. Apart from his attitude, he's a good editor and I've said this many times in the past.

As for the VFD thing, I hadn't even thought about deleting all your articles on crowns and things. I think they serve a useful purpose and I like reading about the history. Good on you. But this "Vicarius Filii Dei" stuff is pure crap. Even if it was emblazoned on every papal garment down to his socks it would still be nonsense - you can get 666 out of just about anything and it means nothing. I dare say you could add up the letters in Mother Teresa and get 666. Do we really need to fill up WP with such rubbish? Point out that the words don't appear on any papal tiara, and even if they did it would mean nothing. Two sentences instead of a whole article with pictures. Pete 08:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, Pete Skyring, your VfD nomination was, to quote you, pure crap. You should —and I am confident that you will— be sanctioned for it. El_C 10:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I offer you my sincere apologies for having failed to follow through and watch over this, Jtdirl. El_C 11:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Casual Question

Hi Jtdirl. You are obviously Wikipedia's preeminant Ireland expert, so I was wondering if you could perhaps give me a small bit of help with an outside project I am working on. On my own personal website I have been working on a guide to "judicial costumes of the world." You can check it out here. Anyway, I was wondering if you could summarize for me how Irish judges dress. I have been unable to find much contemporary information and would really appriciate your insights. Thanks, user:J.J.

Ah, thanks! I knew you'd have all the info I needed. Thanks a ton for the help! user:J.J.

Governors-General of Commonwealth Realms

I corrected your template to remove Rhodesia, which never had a Governor-General, as it was never legally recognised as an independent state, before or after being declared a republic in 1970.

The legitimate representative of the Queen was the Governor, but he was sidelined as Ian Smith appointed his deputy as 'Officer Administrating the Government'. The Queen wrote a personal letter to Smith stating that his actions were against the Crown, so there was no chance of her appointing a Governor-General as 'Queen of Rhodesia'.

It's not unheard of, though, for a British colony to have a Governor-General - Nigeria did, partly as a consequence of it having a federal system. I'm not sure what happened with the Central African Federation (of Rhodesia and Nyasaland) I think the three colonies kept their separate Governors, or the Governor of Southern Rhodesia was de facto Governor of the entire Federation.

Quiensabe 21 Jun 2005 22:00 UTC

An Phoblacht

While that newspaper may not be preferred reading material (it isn't mine either) it's a good idea to get the name right. It isn't Án Poblacht, as there is no 'fada' on 'An' (the definite article) and as a result of lenition, 'poblacht' is aspirated, hence phoblacht'.

Nach ea?

Quiensabe 22:06 UTC 21 June 2005

Sorry! i wasn´t aware of the discussion page, my bad. i put them up at the discussion forum now, feel free to join in i´m curious what you think. Antares911 23:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

spelt vs. spelled -- Tiruchirapalli

Food for thought - the next time I see something like this I'll try to verify whether or not it's correct grammatically or if it only sounds weird because it's just me. I know about the spelling conventions and certain word usages between the varying styles of English used on Wikipedia, but I guess "spelt" vs. "spelled" was too subtle for me to really think about in that context. StopTheFiling 23:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hey

I've been avoiding anything to do with Skyring. Hopefully the Arbcom will get on with it and set a decent ban, and if he makes good on his treats to reappear as an anon I will be more than happy to block any number of IPs and socks. It's pretty obvious he's not trying to make the Wiki a better place or he'd spend his time cleaning up real mess rather than fussing over a couple of spelling errors. If he's really getting to you ask for an injunction.--nixie 02:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Huh?

I'm sorry, were you going to explain your reversion of me, or just hope I didn't notice? Transclusion is heavily frowned upon in this method, and I stated so - you apparently didn't think to return the same respect. Shall we discuss this now, or just keep clicking "rollback"? --Golbez 22:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

surnames of monarchs

Could you present evidence that monarchs generally have a legal surname?? Legal evidence, such as official registers, deeds, etc. It seems that under your hitherto unsupported assumption, you have been making edits.

And, could you present evidence that the Danish royal house really has a legal surname?? I would guess that even you could have been understood the contrary from the information in prince Philip's article, re his official assumption of Mountbatten as surname. 217.140.193.123 22:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained reversions

Seem to be your calling card. Like leaving a single topic on my talk page with no words to explain it. Reverting an article's talk page is no substitution for not explaining your reversion either; plus it's against Wikipedia policy. As I'm sure you're aware. ℬastique▼^talk 04:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you changed your name? I didn't know who the hell you were. Geez... Don't you sleep? What time is it over there... Of course I know the rules, but I've spent too much time on this sodding computer and can't think clearly. Look for a new image for Loughrea crest soon... ℬastique▼^talk 05:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was an accidental reversion, which I could not revert because you had done so already. The explanation is on your talk page. Put simply, I was reverting the main page because you seem not to understand the rules on language use on wikipedia. But I accidentally reverted the talk page instead of the main page. I was typing up an apology and an explanation while you were leaving a message here. And no, I have not changed my name. Same name for quite a while!!!FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 05:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's 5:07 over there???? Are you completely mad? Did you realize we had loads of things in common? ℬastique▼^talk 05:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now I know what it is...Because of your signature, I'm confusing you with BrendanConway... But he's File Éirann... ℬastique▼^talk

---

I saw this, and I am appalled. You are an admin. And you used rollback against a good edit, restoring all sorts of blatant errors. Did you apologize for it? Seriously, that is beyond anything I've seen here, completely. Honestly, I think you should submit yourself for an admin revote over that. Everyking 09:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration against User:JarlaxleArtemis

This message is to inform you that a Request for Arbitration has been initiated against the user JarlaxleArtemis. Since you have been affected by this user's behaviour [10], you are invited to join yourself to the proceedings and/or present evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis_2/Evidence. —Psychonaut 29 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Garden of Remembrance

Please stop reverting. The title is much too general to be attached to one garden — that's why I moved it to Garden of Remembrance, Dublin. If I find other relevant articles, I'll make the redirect a disambiguation page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 29 June 2005 17:29 (UTC)

I'm afraid you didn't read what I wrote (above). I said that I'd make it a disambiguation page if I found other relevant articles. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 30 June 2005 08:28 (UTC)

Skyring arbitration case

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the skyring case →Raul654 June 30, 2005 20:15 (UTC)

Consorts, etc

Hi. Your contributions are still keeping me laughing. (I need all the entertainment I can get just at the moment.) Luv, Deb 30 June 2005 20:32 (UTC)

New template <<dala>>

I'm curious why you listed Dáil Éireann (1919-1922) but not wikilinked in this template? --Red King 1 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)

silly person that I am. I was on that article at the time, and of course it wouldn't be linked. --Red King 1 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)

Hey James Duffy (or Jtdirl, whichever you prefer) what's up dude...My friend Lir says "Hi"--anon

File:Jp2baptize.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jp2baptize.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/{{subst:#time:Y F j|-0 days}}#File:Jp2baptize.jpg|discussion]] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Thuresson 3 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)

John Gilligan

I just began a John Gilligan stub, and quickly realised I've forgotten everything about the man. Any help would be appreciated. --Irishpunktom\^talk July 4, 2005 11:13 (UTC)

DW

Thanks for the advice about the latest apparent incarnation of DW. My only run-in with him so far is at Esther Delisle, where his edits, although questionable, don't really cross the line. I'll check the article again, though, and consult with Mathieugp, who seems to have run into the new user more frequently. As someone who is still not persuaded that Jacques Delson was DW, and who has been accused of being DW himself, I want to give buddy enough rope, eh? John FitzGerald 5 July 2005 11:09 (UTC)

DW? Arthur's sister? --Irishpunktom\^talk July 5, 2005 13:30 (UTC)

I love how they have pets, even though they are pets themsleves. The mind boggles. El_C 5 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

Benedict, enthronement, etc.

Hi there. I read your remarks regarding the use of inauguration on the Benedict page (which I probably should have done before editing the beginning), so I tried a compromise text. I posted my reasons under your remarks in the talk page. Let me know what you think. Pmadrid 7 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)

Princess of Wales template

Much better! Great work! Astrotrain July 7, 2005 22:12 (UTC)

Animated Sig

Hey Jtdirl, hope you are doing well (that almost rhimes!). I am writing to you because I noticed your new sig, and I'm afraid I find it to be rather sizable and distracting with its animated motion-ness of wind and flags. I was hoping you'd consider modifying it. El_C 7 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)

Strike that, I have yet to read the news when I wrote the above. El_C 8 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

My heart jumped for a second, I have close relatives in England. Luckly they are safe. El_C 8 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

I have to agree with El C. A large animated signature is distracting. The best Wikipedia-way to show grief and solidarity may be to improve an article on a related topic. Still, a very nice sentiment. Cheers, -Willmcw July 8, 2005 05:47 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I have no idea why you would make it, but the foul language you used on User talk:John FitzGerald is unwarranted and violates Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy:

• Hey John, re DW's latest incarnation. The user in question is permanently banned. If you are convinced that it is him Wikipedia policy is that all his edits, no matter what their quality should be reverted. All articles created by him should be instantly deleted and he could be instantly blocked permanently. I thought we had seen the last of that asshole. But obviously not. Oh well. FearÉIREANN \(talk) 5 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia:Administrator, you know better. If you ever use such vocabulary to describe me, I will immediately take this matter to the dispute resolution process. Thank you. A. Lafontaine 8 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

Holly molly... I think you better watch your ass man 'cause Monsieur Lafontaine might threaten to take you to court next time around. ;-) -- Mathieugp 8 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)

He never changes!!! Yup. It'll be a threat to sue next. Amazing how "Monsieur Lafontaine" (if that is his latest incarnation!) is so touchy! lol

FearÉIREANNFile:Irish flag.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 8 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother

Thank you for the comment. I agree with you, the page about the late Queen Mother should be at "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon." It struck me as very odd that there was a note exceping the late Queen Mother from normal naming conventions on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). I went through the page history and found that the notice was inserted by an annonymous user back in April [11].

I went through the talk page and looked for discussion on the subject and I could find nothing of the sort. Thus, I'm wondering if this notice was put in with consensus or if it was just inserted without discussion; I suspect it's probably the latter. You've been much more involved in the dicussion over naming conventions than I, so you probably have more knowledge on the subject than me. Should the notice on the naming conventions page regarding the late Queen Mother be removed? 青い(Aoi) 9 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I agree with what you're saying. Would it be appropriate to just go ahead and remove the "exception" from the naming conventions? Or would it be better to remove it with a supplementary explanation on the talk page? I'm not sure how to proceed from here; I apologize. In either case, the article on the Queen Mother was Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon for as long as I can remember and I don't think it should have been renamed. The naming conventions should be followed and not bent. 青い(Aoi) 03:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jtdirl and others, I think it is good to know something I found out today: User:Antares911 is not so newbie here in WP as that username's histories (and some of the said user's comments) gives impression. It seems quite certain that the same user has here a sockpuppet User:at33 which was active at least in March, and which Antares uses yet now and then (possibly for certain purposes). The said older username got several reprimands (see its Talk page) which seem quite similar as the behavior typical to Antares too - and particularly, the user got reprimands for cut-and-paste moves of articles. However, when coming here as "new" user, Antares apparently thought that there is no longer need to remember received reprimands, and again made cut-and-paste duplicates, at least that which was at Elisabeth, Empress of Austria.
Although there is no solid evidence, the said longer history leaves a possibility that between usernames, the same person made the sneak operation re QEtheQM in conventions, which took place in April.
Through various observations, I have caught Antares using IPs at least beginning with 213.7.... and 160.45.... (evidence has at least IP: 213.7.94.25 and IP 160.45.163.109). If some of you have means to check user's IPs here, these numbers are good to check out. 217.140.193.123 17:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

changing rules

hi there. you cannot change rules unilaterally without having it gone thru a discussion first. please post your views first, thank you. Antares911 17:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

this is weird. you can´t change a rule unilaterally by claiming that someone changed without notice, this has been in for months now and many users saw this rule without anyone objecting. please revert to the state it was in, and if you want to change it, then place a discussion and we can talk about it. but please don´t go in and just change a rule unilaterally.. Antares911 17:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course you were right to change it back. The bit you removed didn't really have anything to do with the main article anyway. Deb 18:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for being bold and restoring the proper Wikipedia naming conventions, as well restoring the article about the late Queen Mother back to its proper place at Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. I'm not bold enough to do anything of the sort yet, haha. 青い(Aoi) 03:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

QEtheQM

Jtdirl, what is the move you claim I had made? I certainly have not put Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in that spot Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother (on what basis do you think such move had been mine?) - I have opposed such placement. And I have not actually moved any articles (here in Wikipedia) - how do you think I even could have, as I have not such moving power, being here with IP and not as a reg.userb (and I don't want such power). If you check very carefully those moves, I think you will find that the said move was made by Antares - are you saying that I am Antares :))217.140.193.123 18:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Block of Pwqn

Hi Jtdirl,

I'm a bit (okay, very) concerned about the block that you imposed on Pwqn (talk · contribs). He's got a lot (>1700) of contributions going back to December 2004, to a wide range of topics. Have you got something solid to indicate that he's a Skyring sock? There's been a posting to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_User:Pwqn WP:AN/I on the issue; could you reply there? Imposing a one-month block is pretty serious stuff. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that you have to wake up to this (I'm guessing that you're in Ireland). I've unblocked Pwqn for now, since blocking as a Skyring sock may have been premature. My apologies for stepping on your toes here; I hope I don't bruise too badly. I'll keep an eye on him, and you're certainly more than welcome to do the same. If there are any troubles with him I'd strongly encourage you to bring it up on WP:AN/I. To avoid any perception of conflict of interest, I'd recommend getting another admin to place any further blocks on this issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I also came to comment on that issue. Skyring must be extraordinarily farsighted to set up a sockpuppet and not commit it to battle until over half a year after the creation of the account. It would really take some very good, solid evidence, like an IP check, to warrant this. Can't there be a real content dispute without it being sockpuppetry? Everyking 07:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Many users run dual identities on Wikipedia (they should, but they do.) Some have been caught using 10 or more. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 17:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It is of course possible, but I find it very farfetched. Like I said, this would need an IP check, or at least a general consensus that they are indeed the same person. Whereas you just unilaterally blocked for a month! I understand the frustration, but I think this matter should be treated as a content dispute rather than a user dispute. Everyking 17:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

One of the downsides of adminship is the intimate exposure one gets to the seamier side of Wikipedia. It's all too easy to jump to conclusions about sockpuppetry and vandalism, and slip out of assuming good faith...just because that assumption so often seems to be wrong. Nevertheless, we must still make it. When an editor has a long contribution history of many constructive edits, it behooves us to use the utmost care and restraint in using the blocking tools. There's very little faster way to upset a good contributor than to impose an unwarranted block. Please be more careful in the future, and seek third-party advice in dealing with conflicts to which you are a party. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

QEII and PMs

Thanks for rewriting that section. Exactly what I would have liked to do myself, if I'd known all the details JPD 10:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

His Holiness, His Majesty

I notice you've reverted a couple of pages of mine, in which I follow the Wikipedia standard for popes; why? Only a very few dead popes had "His Holiness". Both Wikipedia and any other encyclopedia you care to examine omit honorifics for dead kings and popes; this makes us look silly, and it's one of the reasons why better contributors don't pitch in as much as they could. Or do you plan on adding "His Holiness" to Paul III, John VIII, Innocent X, etc.? (If so, you better get to work — there's a lot of them. You might also want to add "His Honor" for dead American judges, "His Grace" for dead Lords, etc. Seriously: you don't want to do that, do you?) Bill 17:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The answer is on your talk page. While you were editing here I was editing there! lol FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 17:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

RE:Date formats

Hello Jtdirl. The reason I reverted the dates was becuase for some silly reason I thought when entering date/month, Wikipedia automatically changed it to month/year and doing so would be easier for Wiki to change it (*feels silly and stares at what's available in Preferences*) - that aside, if "it is against Wikipedia policy to change dates from whatever way they were put in", should it not be the user, who's edits I reverted, you should be talking to? Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 23:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

moving images in your sig

Please change to non-moving versions of the images in you sig. in general I dislike images in sigs at all, but I understand why you want these. But the moving images are VERY distracting, and can cause real problems for some users, particularly users with seizure disorders. DES 23:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Cleveland Street Scandal

I would like to thank regarding your kind words on my rewrite. You may also want to check my article on the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. I am also working on two World War II-related artcles right now, just for heads up. RashBold 13 July 2005 0145 (UTC)

Roll of Honour

To let you know, I recreated it. However, it is a disambig page now, since there are two things that are called Roll of Honour: the song and a list of dead from wars. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

Thank you for blocking 66.142.160.221! I really appreciate it! I'll let you know if he continues to vandalize after his ban is up.

Thanks again! Jaxl 23:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927

Why are you reinserting original research into the article (and moreover doing so as a "minor" edit). It's basic enough to expect "some constitutional theorists" to be named, or at least one of them to be named. Otherwise there's nothing to indicate that the passage isn't pure conjecture by whichever editor wrote it. Andy 17:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ireland and the Crown

I've noticed that on numerous pages you weigh into discussions with a good knowledge of the Crown and the Commonwealth, especially in relation to Ireland. In an ongoing debate over at Talk:Commonwealth Realm/5.5 Send in the Crowns, User:AndyL has raised a point about the UK allowing Edward VIII's abdication before the Irish Parliament gave assent to such an act. Can you confirm this as true? And, if it is, would you know why this would have happened? If it did, that means the UK was in breach of the convention laid out in the Statute of Westminster stating that the permission of all the Realms must be sought before any alteration to the line of succession can be made. Your imput would be appreciated. --gbambino 20:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

User:HisHoliness

I hear (from a probably sockpuppet) that you blocked this user and I see no warning before you did. Of course its possible you didn't.. If you didn't block him then I apologize, but please warn before blocking next time if you did. See User Talk:Redwolf24#Papal Styles and Illegal Block Redwolf24 22:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Your sig

For some reason that is outside my power to explain, any time your sig displays on my browser window, my entire web browser crashes if I try to scroll the window up or down. Needless to say, this is aggravating. Could you possibly consider changing your sig? Thanks very much. Snowspinner 00:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Pope Gregory XVII

Pope Gregory XVII was certainly a Pope. Please undelete the page.

Here is evidence: http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/04Sep/sep12mdi.htm

That is not evidence. That is an opinion. It is already covered on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not however put self-proclaimed 'popes' in on the list of popes because it is not independently verified but simply a point of view of a tiny group of fringe Roman Catholics. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not a matter of opinion, but truth. It is not covered on Wikipedia in more than a derogatory, incomplete manner. Pope Gregory XVII is not "self-proclaimed"-- he was elected at the valid conclave in 1958. The antipopes John XXIII and his successors created their own new religion in the 1960s called the neo-"Catholic" or Conciliar Church. Many teachings of their new religion conflict with and are in complete opposition with teachings of the Catholic Church.

That is your opinion. Wikipedia cannot base its edits on what you personally believe. It can only go by the question: who does the Roman Catholic Church believe was its pope? It did not believe Siri was. Siri did not believe Siri was. Ipso facto, he was not pope, from the point of view of an encyclopaedia. Issue closed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

As I said, it is not a matter of opinion. Only one person, Gregory XVII or John XXIII, could have been pope. Historical evidence supports Gregory XVII. The Roman Catholic Church mostly acknowledges Gregory XVII as a pope. The Conciliar Church (falsely claiming to be Catholic) does not. Luke-Jr

Did Siri say he was pope? No. Did a majority of the College of Cardinals say he was pope? No. Did a single cardinal say he was pope? No. Did Siri accept Roncalli as pope? Yes. Ergo Siri was not pope. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

So, just say something in the article like, "Whether or not he was officially a pope is a matter of much controversy," and list the reasons. ‡ Jarlaxle 22:18, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

He's worthy of his own article, though, isn't he? Perhaps under a different title, such as Gregory XVII? ‡ Jarlaxle 22:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I didn't realize there already was an article about him at Giuseppe Cardinal Siri. ‡ Jarlaxle 22:36, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Did Siri say he was pope? He hinted at it. Did a majority of the College of Cardinals say he was pope? YES. Did a single cardinal say he was pope? Probably. Did Siri accept Roncalli as pope? Not likely. -Luke-Jr

The Late King

Why are you vandalizing my edits on the late British monarch????? MoralHighGround 22:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Banned trolls are not welcome on this page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, sure, but why are you vandalizing my edits? MoralHighGround 22:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Banned trolls are not welcome on this page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean with this guy. I've reverted his vandalising George VI edits. Astrotrain 09:17, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Alix of Hesse and by Rhine

Have you had a look at the debate over the naming of this article? You seem to be about the only person who hasn't been involved. The latest effort, by that loony 217.... bloke/"Arrigo", is truly farcical. Deb 20:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This guy's a laugh a minute. Deb 22:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

He's at it again. He should do stand-up. Deb 17:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Mary Robinson

I believe the reasons behind Robinson's departure from the UN are important. See http://www.thinkandask.com/news/un.html. I remember reading about it in the papers at the time. If I find anything else I'll let you know.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that's possible, but [12] it still rings true for me. If you can back up your version, I'll leave it alone.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Dates

You DO realize that the Wiki software renders dates put within linking brackets according the user's set preferences? For example:

• [[14 December]] becomes 14 December
• [[December 14]] becomes December 14

The two should be rendered identically.

On the other hand, if you insert an extraneous space into the dates, as you did with George VI of the United Kingdom, they force a literal rendering of the date:

• [[14 December ]] - 14 December
• [[December 14 ]] - December 14

Was this deliberate, and if so, why would you do that? --Calton | Talk 00:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

A troll (already banned a number of times) have been changing dates on European topics from dd/mm/yy to mm/dd/yy in articles I edit. Right, And if rendering of dates depends on user settings, what possible difference does it make if dd/mm/yy or mm/dd/yy is used in the text? --Calton | Talk 20:29, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

User:HisHoliness

He has been blocked forever due to his "trollish behaviour" by David Gerard on 19:44, 18 July 2005. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Your Majesty

Beyond your obnoxious signature, I am appalled that you have appointed yourself guardian and Lord of Wikipedia and moving Elizabeth II--the issue will continue to come up because it is bizzare that her article relegates her to "of the United Kingdom" when her realms extend all over the world. EdwinHJ | Talk 18:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

obnoxious ? Have you gone and changed your Sig again? I quite liked the Ye Olde Fenian flag that you had last time I saw your edits. --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you thought I had a problem with your slogan or you personally. I guess I find your signature to be unconventional and it seems to draw a lot of attention. But I should not fault you for that. I'm also sorry if I was a little harsh, this is a topic that is really important to me and I guess I was frustrated that I didn't play a bigger role when the move was suggested before. On a different note, I want you to know that I love everything about the Irish, their music, their culture, food, music, dance and language (and Guinness!).EdwinHJ | Talk 23:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. No hard feelings. I left a longer piece on your talk page, Edwin.

Alexandra whatsit

Hi, mate. I've started another vote at Talk:Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse to try and knock some sense into you-know-who. Deb 22:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems like we're part of a "conspiracy" now. Haven't had so much fun since the old days of DW (remember him?) Deb 23:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you, Deb and Jtdirl, sort of habitual conspirators, here or overall?? Anyway, thanks for the above information of your such working method. 217.140.193.123 00:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

See what's happening now? What larks! Deb 11:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

IRA

I'd love to help, but I don't know enough about the subject to do little more than reiterating your comments on talk. BTW, great work on the rewrite. It was long overdue. 172 | Talk 22:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've done a bit of subediting - I trust you are content but feel free to change.--Red King 23:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

A signature suggestion

I thought I would show you a neat trick if you want to lessen the amount of text each time you sign your name but results in the same thing. I created, as an example, the template Template:Jtdirl (I don't know how to make it show up without doing it, so it is curly curly Jtdirl curly curly, if that makes sense), which you can place in your signature and produces the same thing and can be changed easily by editing Template:Jtdirl. If you don't want to use it, just feel free to blank the page or mark it for speedy deletion. Hope it works well for you. EdwinHJ | Talk 23:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

excellent. Thanks.

Persnally I find any images in signatrures distracting, and a waste of server resources. I find moving images highly distasteful, as they may actually do harm to some readers (yes I have been present when a movin icon caused a seizure in someone). DES 23:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have photosensitive epilepsy, which can be triggered off by sunlight in car journeys, by television screens, by strobe lighting. But it is impossible for these images to cause a seizure. The nature of the movement is far too slow and far too minimal. About the only way they could possibly cause a seizure is if you magnified the image 10,000 times, then spared into it, then shut your eyes suddenly. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. And I for one don't find moving images "hightly (sic) distasteful". The only reason I took the flag off, temporarily, is because it was causing some browser trouble for a user. If there was the slightest danger of causing a seizure it wouldn't have been used. A person would be a million times more more likely to get a seizure from a computer monitor than they would be a 6 milimetre slow-moving flag. It would have to be far far bigger and far far far faster to have the slightest danger of causing a seizure. Please don't use the excuse of seizures which some of us have to live with to push your preference over moving images. It is disrespectful to those of us who are prone to seizures. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

For your information my wife has epilepsy, and I have been present when a moving icon (granted, one a bit bigger that the one in your sig) caused her to have a seizure which left her incapacitated for three days. Don't tell me I am being disrespectful of those prone to seizures. I am very sorry to learn that you are subject to them, and you have my sympathies. The experience of being awaked by the person lying next to you having a siezure is likely to stir considerable respect for such people. DES 00:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I admit that I have aesthetic objectiosn to the moving image, quite aside from the seizure issue, but those are far more personal. Server load may be a good reason to object to all images in sigs, but I don't think a moving image involves much if any more server laod than a still one does. DES 00:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to hear your wife has them too. I don't know which is worse; having them or seeing someone having them. It sounds like she has photosensitive epilepsy. One thing I have learnt having spent decades with it is how dangerous it is. If I thought there was the slightest danger in using a moving image here it would not have been used. But the image is too small and too slow to trigger anything. It would need to flicker at a very high speed, and be considerably larger, to create a reaction. I doubt if any gif can trigger a seizure — they are far far too slow. You are talking about a rapid-fire flicker (eg, sunlight flashing through trees, a big flash on a screen, strobe lighting of longer than I think 15 seconds, etc to trigger off a seizure. I am lucky that I have not had one for a couple of years, but I have to take medication to avoid them. I also cannot drive, sit on the side of a bus facing sunlight, avoid the dancefloor in niteclubs, etc to avoid the risk of them. One doctor told me that REM sleep can trigger them off if the brain is imagining images at the wrong moment. That is one thing you cannot avoid. Life with epilepsy is a right pain, but there is damn all I can do about it. I do hope your wife isn't too badly affected by them. She (and you) have my sympathy, and I can understand your concern. In the case of the flag, though I don't think there was any danger. It would have to be much bigger and probably need to be running at at least 50 times the speed to have any danger of causing a seizure. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Her epilepsy is i suppose "photosensitive" in that it can be so triggered, but it can also be triggerd by other things, such as diet (sugar will do it) or stress, and they are the more common triggers for her. For light I have seen it triggerd by a web page with a moving image but I admint i don't know exactly (and can't now determine) what its speed was. I will say that an ordinary slow ceiling fan, if there are lights behind it, will routinely trigger a seizure for her if that gives any useful data. DES 00:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps i overreacted, and I am glad to know that you are aware of the issue and have satisfied yourself that the danger is low. She takes meds, but still is not under compelte control -- new meds comming out shortly are suppsoed to make a sizable improvement, according to her neurologist. Thankd for your sympathy. I will now drop the issue as far as your sig and similar ones goes. i still dislike them personally on aesthetic grounds, but that isn't enough of a reason to fore prefs on other people. DES 00:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Epilepsy

I'm glad the police took a reasonable view of the matter. Thanks for the exchange, and I'm sorry if I came on too strongly. DES 00:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Commonwealth realm

Would you consider helping out a bit --the idea is to protect the page, while having you and Peter and I (just helping out) work on the article itself to represent "the debate" as it were. While the clinical view of "the law states clearly" is nice and easy, youve been helpful in illustrating how the reality isnt all that cut and dry. If you have the time. Sinreg -SV|t 05:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Six counties

I don't agree. If you have'nt already, please see Talk: Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland, where there was a long discussion about this.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Simple it certainly is not. "...as POV terms of one side they should not be used." NI is not a neutral term. I would rather you read the discussion first.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Does Séamus Mallon disappoint you? I resent strongly your use of the word "sectarian". It does you no credit.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That would be alright if "Northern Ireland" was NPOV, which it patently is not. I have already explained this at length. Your reference to using Ulster/Six Counties indicates to me that you did not read the discussion I referred you to as closely as you should have.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Much of "Northern Ireland" has already "changed the name". You are displaying a poor knowledge of what constitutes vandalism.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

What you refer to as my "claims" would be surprisingly easy to substantiate. Once again, your reference to my use of "Ulster" indicates you have not yet taken in the substance of what I wrote on the talk page I directed you to.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support as usual. The little toe-rag is just trying to wind me up, but it would take a better man than him to succeed. Deb 20:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

And have you noticed how all the people voting for his proposal are people whose first language isn't English? I have the utmost respect for polyglots, but ... Deb 22:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

...Sorry, I got interrupted in the middle there. I just wanted to say what a bunch of sweethearts they are. Deb 17:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

your tone

dear Jtdirl, thank you for posting that kind comment on my discussion page. allow me to say that there is no need to sound condescending or even agitated. whatever point it is you have to make, you can say it in a calm, orderly manner. i hope in future our tone of discussion will be marked by more respect without sounding condescending or rude, because I certainly don´t talk that way to you. there really is no need for this. I´m hoping for further good cooperation, thank you. Antares911 22:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Lady

Just to let you know that I've protected the Lady Catherine Grey page from moves as a temporary measure to prevent it being moved to Catherine Grey again. It had been at the old-style title since before we amended the naming conventions, and I hadn't noticed it until last week. Someone who disagreed with the conventions immediately moved it back, so I've had to take appropriate action. Deb 16:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Derry

There is a proposal to move Derry to Londonderry/Derry!, see Talk:Derry for voting. Djegan 20:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Dates

I'm sorry, but have you gone nuts? Wikipedia software AUTOMAGICALLY converts dates to the proper user-preferred formats. This is something you are deliberately trying to to circumvent, and you're saying I'm "screwing around with the dates" and "committing vandalism"? Go ahead and list me as a vandal, but all you'd be doing is begging for a listing on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. Imposing your personal preference on everyone else is, as you should probably know, frowned upon, and you should cease and desist your behavior (or should I say "behaviour"?). --Calton | Talk 03:56, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble buying your explanation, especially since your message read The preferences are set up to covert all wikified dates to the format chosen by a user, but not all users know how to do it. If you persist in adding in American dating to non-American topics they will simply be reverted on sight and will your edits of dates will reported as vandalism:

1) I did NOT add "American dating", I merely removed the existing trailing space to stop the software from rendering the date only one way ([13] & [14]). If you had bothered to read before reverting you might have noticed this, not to mention noticing a few other minor changes which you wiped out in your haste.

2) The first part of the quote above has you explicitly noting how the Wiki software works, and implies you are forcing the format to protect those poor benighted newbies who haven't set their user preferences properly. It implies, very strongly, that your actions were deliberate, not accidental.

3) I explicitly originally brought this to your attention four days ago -- including the trailing space issue (see above), and only now you figure it out?

4) As for the evil troll you are fighting, what possible difference does it make how the date is written in the code? 23 July 2005 is rendered exactly the same as July 23 2005 -- can you tell which one of the previous dates is UK and which is US without opening an edit window? No? Clearly you are bucking for a spot in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever.

Whatever the case, the fact is that you have accused me of vandalism either due to your laziness in not checking the facts or in malice to force a personal preference, when you were dead wrong. I do not take such accusations lightly, and frankly, neither should you. --Calton | Talk 05:12, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

So keep your paranoid dillusions [sic] to yourself in future...If you had bothered to do 2 minutes checking before making wild allegations you would have seen that it was not true. Next time get off your butt and actually check the facts first before making stupid allegations.

The phrase "psychological projection" comes immediately to mind. We should I bother taking advice from someone has manifestly failed to follow it himself? You were wrong. This is what is quaintly referred to as a "fact", and that your reaction to this inconvenient fact is to scream louder and make lame excuses that in no way, shape, or form address a single thing I wrote nor apologize for your thought-free slander pretty much tells me what level of intellectual honesty I can expect from you in general.

By the way, do you realize that in your knee-jerk haste to revert without bothering to read anything, you killed off the Queen? Nice work, Einstein. --Calton | Talk 05:49, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

We might have some clean-up to do...

Sorry to bother you with this, but I was browsing around earlier today and came across another article that was moved by Antares911 via copy and paste Emperor Akihito of Japan. I'm going to redirect the page back to Akihito right after I finish writing this, but it makes me wonder just how many pages Antares911 moved via copy and paste before (s)he realized the seriousness of such moves. I put a request on Antares's page to list the pages that (s)he moved in that manner. Thank you, 青い(Aoi) 08:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I find it amazing that Antares "could" be so "innocent" of knowing the cut-and-paste moves forbidden, as several people ave warned Antares of that repeatedly over several months. Looking at histories at User talk:Antares911 (and User talk:Bhinneka and User talk:at33) are giving a long list of warnings. Arrigo 23:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Her Majesty

Queen Victoria isn't "Her Majesty" any more. It looks like you are fighting a really pointless revert war. FreeAccount 23:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

— and civility is not served by using charged words like "POV" and "vandalism" on people who disagree with you. You still have not said where this great compromise was purportedly reached, and I notice that you said the compromise was to keep all the articles in the state they were at Point X — but William IV now has his Majesty and you haven't reverted it. You ought to know far better than to describe me as engaging in vandalism. Finally, it's clear that you either can't or won't read: the British monarchy themselves refer to Queen Victoria (as does everybody else in encyclopedic or scholarly writing, and almost everybody else in casual writing) as just plain QV, no HM. HM really is for the living, and no disrespect is meant by anyone following the customary style; rather the reverse. Bill 23:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou for the comments. This is a really silly point to argue over; I cannot believe you see it as vandalism. FreeAccount 00:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism is what just happened to your talk page. I fixed it without a second thought. Saying Queen Victoria is "Her Majesty" (or not) is something else. Are you trying to stir up trouble? FreeAccount 00:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

(in reply to you at my Talk page) Umm, thanks for the obscure link. I tried finding some such discussion, and just couldn't. Mind you, from what I've read of it so far, I find a bunch of people arguing, quite rightly, about an absurdly complex system of voting, rather than the question itself.... The fact that X is supposedly a troll should not have us all scurrying to do weird stuff because X doesn't like it; if Osama bin Ladin likes bananas, should I deny myself a banana split? One of the cardinal principles, supposedly, of Wikipedia, is that this is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in democracy. Since it's quite impossible to avoid the latter — see for example the POV that passes for consensus under Adolf Hitler, Terry Schiavo, split infinitive and many other articles, complete with virulent aspersions on the minority and constant reverting, suggests that it is not — it all boils down to the fundamentally American myth that everything is solvable by democracy at the lowest denominator. Here we have a question requiring very very little specialized knowledge (everyone knows the Pope is "Your Holiness") therefore everybody feels we can chip in usefully. Majority voting on this kind of thing leads to stuff that is just plain wrong (a very large majority of people refer to ancient theaters as "amphitheaters" — it's still wrong). Wikipedia's credibility is at stake; and something this obstinately stupid, held to as policy, you tell me, to spite some poor schmuck in Canberra — doesn't make me feel good about editing anything; I mean, what good am I doing? Bill 09:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Use of Æ

I've checked Wikipedia, and it says Æ is part of Old English, and it is part of other languages. About it's use in Modern English, the wikipedia page says some words "can" be written with æ, but as you and I know, in the UK and Ireland no normal person uses æ to write mediaeval. To formally confirm this I checked the Oxford Compact English Dictionary, and it has neither an entry for mediæval, nor even a mention of mediæval in the mediaeval or medieval entries. In light of all this, I will replace "mediæval" with "mediaeval". Gronky 01:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Since Gronky referred me to this comment of his when he reverted my edit, I had better reply here. Gronky wrote: "no normal person" uses æ; perhaps not. I reverted his edit to restore æ. He reverted me with a comment to see this entry. My comment was ‘revert in memory of George William Russell’. Perhaps he wasn’t normal; he wrote about ‘the færy world’ and those who ‘live only in then æther’, and of others who dwell ‘up the æry mountains’. Perhaps he wasn’t normal. He didn’t adhere to the spelling found in Gronky's Oxford Compact English Dictionary; he didn’t because he lived in Rathgar Avenue, at its junction with Kenilworth Square. I would appreciate it if Gronky left words spelt as Dubliners would spell them, in articles about Dublin alone, rather than imposing his Oxford spelling. Thank you, --ClemMcGann 09:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Culture of Northern Ireland

Not sure if you will be interested in this article, but there seems to be an edit war going on between two users, both breaking 3RR. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you not think this page should be left unprotected, so that other people are free to change it? After all, which version is there is of reasonably little consequence (although obviously I feel one version is preferable to the other, in this case the JW1804 version), and editing can continue on it till people wear themselves out. Lapsed Pacifist should presumably be blocked for breaking the 3RR - particularly if he once again reverts when the page is unprotected.

zoney ♣ talk 20:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the 3RR violation. Actually, I had though that we were allowed 3 reverts per day (midnight to midnight), but upon reading the 3RR page more carefully, I guess it's "any 24 hour period". So, I will try to be more carefull. However, please note that immediately after being unblocked Lapsed Pacifist begain his usual series of subtle POV reverts: putting "Six Counties" on Fianna Fáil, obscuring the poll results on Northern Ireland, implying that Northern Ireland isn't really part of the UK on Flag of Northern Ireland, etc., etc.... --JW1805 16:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ack

Again? The mind boggles.--nixie 06:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Block

It looks like you blocked User:FreeAccount for being a sockpuppet (somebody pointed this out to me), but I didn't see a mention of whose sockpuppet you think it is, or what kind of evidence you're acting on. Why don't you make this clear? The block might be good but we ought to know the reason for it. You should post on WP:AN or WP:AN/I about these kinds of blocks, and explain them, so we can see what sort of reactions they get from others. Everyking 08:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The same user has complained to me, as well. I'm assuming that you (Jtdirl) believe that this is a Skyring sock, based on your note to Zscout370...?

Could you take care in future to explicitly note who a sock belongs to when you block? Also, you might want to bring suspected Skyring socks to WP:AN/I or get David Gerard to perform sock checks—it creates quite a mess when 'socks' are blocked, and then turn out not to be. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Queen Mum

Thanks for your edits - sorry I was a bit POV, I can't help it! (Not that I'm even particularly an anti-monarchist, but the rest of the article is very uncritical.) Re your Socialist Worker comment, though I agree that it isn't an impartial source (by any means!) and the cited article was very POV, it reports (alleged) facts, even if its opinions should not be quoted. And an unsatisfactory source is perhaps better than no source (as readers could make up their own minds about the reliability of the source). But I'm happy to leave it unsourced. Ben Finn 23:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thanks again for your support. Probably the best way to handle my new admirer is to let him get on with it. The more time he spends ranting at me, the fewer opportunities he has to do damage elsewhere (not that he does much editing of articles, actually, it's just yak, yak, yak!) Deb 18:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist

(Originally posted Lapsed Pacifist's talk area) LP is an unrepentant troublemaker whose primary interest appears to be to champion his own POV on many articles, and to continually revert anyone else who has constructive additions. How are such people dealt with? Nearside | Talk 01:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Lord John Russell

Hi, I see that you've written the article on Lord John Russell, do you happen to have any information on his older grandson, the 2nd Earl Russell, particularly regarding his trial. Thanks, User:Notquiteauden

Beyond the bounds of what can be tolerated

I believe that "a long block" would be overreaching your authority, and it ill-becomes any administrator on Wikipedia to pretend that this is not so by issuing "final warnings". It goes without saying that I reject your accusations of vandalism and POV-pushing, and the vaguer claims of other users. Your goodwill is neither here nor there.

Lapsed Pacifist 00:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The return of the toccolours

See Template:Infobox Pope. 64.12.117.14 10:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Fianna Fáil

Fianna Fáil has been tagged as npov because the exclusion of the term "six counties" is "pov", see Talk:Fianna Fáil. Djegan 20:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove NPOV tags from articles. You may disagree with the reasons, but there certainly is a dispute on that article. -- Netoholic @ 22:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

In this edit, you removed the NPOV tag I added. From the recent edits, I see Lapsed Pacifist feels that the article isn't NPOV. I also feel that it fails NPOV to mention, minimally, that phrase. We can discuss it further, but now that two editors have agreed that removing "Six Counties" is not NPOV, I put the tag on it. You should not remove it without giving enough time for this dispute to be resolved. The tag draws attention to the dispute, so we can gather more opinions and come to consensus. Please replace the tag as an act of good faith, and let's continue discussing on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 22:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Better? For a second there I thought you were pissed about this ;) -St|eve 05:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:Peerage

It appears an anon has decided that Category:Peerage is too Anglo-centric and that it should be renamed [15]. Your input would be appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

IRA articles

Yes, I like the templates. We both hold the view that there is clear and unambiguous break at 1922, and that later pretenders should not share the same page. There is a very real problem that the Provo's repeated claim has become accepted in the press and Wikipedia has to find a way to provide an entry point for people new to the subject. It is not an option to ignore it. How best to do that remains WIP. --Red King 18:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Irish Republican Army

I think it would be better to continue the ongoing efforts - which have been very productive so far - to reach a consensus on how to deal with the various IRA-things covered on Wikipedia. Given that there's the guts of a consensus forming about this, I would ask you to continue the discussion rather than engaging in major edits that clearly don't command consensus. Palmiro 20:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Consensus and NPOV: when everybody else has one interpretation of what NPOV means and you have another, perhaps it's a hint that you should look at your interpretation again.

Please don't distort what has been happening. Your decision to exclude the post-1922 IRA from Irish Republican Army page is simply based on your POV as to who is morally entitled to use that title. A moral entitlement to use a title is entirely a question of POV and has no place in decisions as to wikipedia coverage.

Furthermore, contrary to what could easily be inferred from your comments on my talk page, the article which you have now created on the IRA from 1922 to 1969 did not exist when I rectified the failure of the article to cover the IRA during those years. I, and other users, had repeatedly pointed this out and had repeatedly pointed out why it should be covered there, and neither you nor anybody else had countered those arguments.

In relation to the actual question of the legitimacy of the varoius IRAs, I would ask you, yet again, to think about how we can define "legitimacy". Legality can be defined in an objective way, but this is far from being the case for legitimacy - unless we use it to mean legitimacy in terms of how people saw X as legitimate or otherwise. There are quite different versions of this in relation to the various IRAs, as you're well aware. To mix them up with legality will cause major problems. This is the key to an NPOV coverage of the various IRAs and the relationship between them, in my view.

Also, could you please explain how you decided what to include in your template? The contents don;t seem to correspond with the contents of cat:Irish Republican Army, which they should. I must say I think the template is unhelpful, it takes up unnecessary space and doesn't really aid understanding in its current form. Also, as I said before, it has massive POV problems. Palmiro 20:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

As your latest contribution to my talk page consists of a personal attack on my competence and good faith, I have replied to it there in my own defence. Palmiro 21:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Your comment to Palmiro Keeping each article separate, linking them, and pointing out that "most people think the original IRA is the real one. Others don't" keeps out of the minefield of appearing to be siding with one side against the other. puts it very well and is the nub of the argument. In fact that whole para (without the references to Palmiro) should go on the general Talk page. --Red King 23:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Speaking about the IRA, I would like to know from an Irishman's POV on the statement by them to stop their violent acts against Britons. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

My "Agreed?" meant "is it agreed that these are the three competing proposals for the content of the article?". (Since an RFC has been called.) You have this habit of responding to what you think people have written, rather than what they've actually written. --Red King 16:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI, A new proposal has been offered at Irish Republican Army, which is a rehash of the same Provo PoV stuff from a few weeks back. --Red King 20:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Moynalty

You know, when I saw the name of the article, I thought you'd created a new concept - a cross between "royalty" and "monarchy"! Deb 08:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Have you been informed?

Hi, Jtdirl. I'm not sure whether you've been informed of this or if you were already aware anyways (if you were, please disregard this). You have been reported for a 3RR violation. In addition, a notice was logged at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rogue admins, regarding the same alleged incident. Regards, Redux 06:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You've been 3RR-blocked for twenty four hours, Jtdirl. Just doing the rounds. I hope things are (otherwise) well with you. All the best, El_C 06:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

My decision has been challenged and you have been 3RR-unblocked on the grounds that the first edit you reverted amounted to vandalism. The pertinent discussion is at the respective AN3 and ANI sections. All the best, El_C 10:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, Jtdirl. I saw your email earlier, but had to get going; now I can't log in. So I just want to express publicly my thanks to you for your gracious and positive response, and again to offer my sincere apologies if I caused you any grief. Best regards, El_C 02:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

A question about Pius VIII

Where did you find that pope Pius was poisoned ? Here you write "A secret autopsy, whose results only became public over a century after his death, did indeed find evidence that he had been poisoned." Thanks AtiN 01:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

In his diary (1830-1855) don Agostino Chigi write he heard that "the pope's viscere were found healthiest and some weakness in the lung has been recovered, others says there were some trouble in the heart; it would remain therefore to know the reason of the death". If you read italian you can verify by yourself here (check for December 2nd 1830).

Is there an other diary ? Who are theses "historians" you are speaking about ? You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free (reference to john 8). Thank you for your help. AtiN 19:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

IRA 22-69

Cheers. As I said, I'm sure it could bear with being looked at in detail again (so can everything, but this perhaps more than most). Palmiro 21:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Crowns

I've been looking at some of your articles on consort crowns. A lot of this is new stuff to me. Can you get any photographs? Deb 21:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Alexandra doodah

I've made a suggestion on the talk page for resolving the naming controversy. Would you give your view, please? Deb 21:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, guess who's already registered opposition! Deb 22:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense

File:4kitties.jpg

Use it wisely! El_C

Hi Jt, I'm sorry you're having to put up with all that sarcastic nonsense from the anon IP (Skyring or whoever) on WP:AN/I. You don't deserve it. I hope you're not letting it get you down, because people can see it for what it is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

If it would make you feel better, I could block you to provide Skyring with an interruption-free soapbox. Let me know! Incompetently yours, El_C 04:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Award

For braving through Skyring as well as my own incompetence, I award you this Four Kittens of the Apocalypse image macro! Use it wisely, keep it secret – keep it safe, etc. ! Yours always, El_C 04:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for explaining just why you format the consort pages the way you do. :) --Golbez 22:50, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Template

My apologies; I didn't mean to intrude. Feel free to move it back and do whatever you wish. Keep me posted on the template's progress—it sounds very promising! Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 00:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Template feedback

You did an excellent job. My suggestions:

• First off, the current versions are a bit heavy on the italics; it'd be a little more readable without some of them. Secondly, on my PC the color looks like light pink rather than purple. Maybe the color should be altered to be unique to the nationality (national colors, etc.)
• I'd prefer a flag to a crown for reasons of clarity and aesthetics.
• Perhaps "royalblue" is a fitting color to use?

Keep it up and keep me posted. Neutrality^talk 02:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: Suggested changes:

Monarchical styles of {{{royal name}}}

Diplomatic style: {{{diplomatic style}}} Spoken style: {{{official style}}} Alternative spoken style: {{{alternative style}}}

How are we going to deal with different styles/titles from birth to death (such as Edward_VIII_of_the_United_Kingdom#Titles_from_birth_to_death)? Neutrality^talk 03:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I remember hearing that "Your Majesty" in England and "Your Grace" in Scotland were both accepted spoken titles of the British monarch? How will we deal with this?

The templates look pretty good to me. I'd be hard pressed to suggest any improvements. Deb 17:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC) (Sorry it's taken so long to respond, I'm having a lot of connection problems at the moment.)

Styles

I like the general approach. I really don't mind where styles go so long as it is not at the start of the article before the subject's name. Adam 03:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The approach seems quite sensible. I'm beginning to feel that the disputes over whether to use "Her Majesty Queen Victoria," "Queen Victoria," or "Victoria" are rather silly and pointless. -- Emsworth 03:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I would concur with Adam and Emsworth - this seems like a reasonable way to get out of the mess. john k 03:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Reasonable? I think it's bloody excellent! What a great solution. Thanks, Jim! Pete 03:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Anything that gets styles moved from use to mention is great by me. I think it would make a bit more sense to integrate the style information into the existing templates for the various offices; but that's a minor point. It can be flashing purple in 72 point fonts, just as long as a WP entry indicates that a style is used rather than endorse the POV that a style should be used. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:59, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

Guys, I've put the draft Queen Victoria box in situ on the Victoria of the United Kingdom page so that you can see how it could possibly be used. The page is protected so it isn't the subject of an edit war on styles right this minute. (No text was harmed —ie, changed— in the installation of the box. It was just a stable place where a box could be shown to give people an idea of how, if the policy is adopted, a box could be used.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The box looks fine. But to illustrate what you mean (or at least what I hope you mean), you should also remove the use of the style in the lead paragraph and at the lead of "Early Life". It doesn't do any good to add an extra mention if the use remains unaltered. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:38, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

That is how I would expect it to work. But because the page is locked I deliberately didn't tamper with the text, so the style there was left untouched. But if that template goes live, the opening line would of course lose the style completely. I think in the text HMs, HRHs, HHs, etc would have to be used very sparingly, only really where it is useful to show for historical reasons the status of someone, for example in lists, but even then sparingly. I find endless styling of individuals OTT. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is the intention. I think it is an elegant solution that will unify the various approaches currently in use. I like the colour for the heading bar; it complements the pastel blue of the dynasty box very well. Pete 05:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really up on the issue, but the concept seems like a good one. My only question is where would the template appear in an article? My feeling is that it would be a good addition onto {{Infobox Biography}} for use in the lead of the article along with a pic and the birth and death dates.--nixie 04:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I also think its bloody cool —no doubt a good compromise between those who want to distinguish the title, but a bit more comprehensive and likewise flashy, to appease the superficial types. If it works, itll be the first time that color graphics would be used to appease a recurrent raging regal rhubarb.-St|eve 06:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thumbs up. I hope that there is/will be a place for the adjective proudly borne by some monarchs: His Apostolic Majesty (Hungary), His Christian Majesty (France), His Most Christian Majesty (somewhere else, but I forget where), His Catholic Majesty (Spain), etc. I think that crowns are better than flags as the graphic: they are less often illustrated so their pictures would be educational, and flags per se may not have existed except as banners containing the individual's Arms. Also, flags are more likely to change during a reign than the crown, and crowns are representative of the status of the person that is the subject of the article but flags signify the broader scope of the entire country. --StanZegel 13:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I belive that Most Christian was also used by the Kings of France, and Most Cathoic by the Kings of Spain, both, as I understand it, having been authorized by Papal Bulls. I don't know what other such styles may have been used. DES ^(talk) 14:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

IIRC, only used by the Kings of France; although we must check whether Louis Philippe also used it. Septentrionalis 15:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, he did, although he was "King of the French". See [16] and [17] (good information on French royal titles in general.) Choess 18:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

An ingenious solution. I am fairly neutral in this war; if polled, I would vote against styles, but I would not start a poll to get rid of them. I find the purple a tad garish, although I understand the reasoning behind it. The Franz Joseph template exhibits two of the problems here: it's wrong on Bohemia (which was one of the states of the Austrian Empire; so "H.I.M.") - these things are tricky - ; and I believe his style was contested in Hungary from 1848 to 1867 - and that is exactly the sort of thing which makes templates crowded.

I also predict that if these become actual templates, instead of being substituted into articles, they will show up on TfD within days. This is merely a prediction, based on observing the deletionists there; I'd vote Keep. Good luck. Septentrionalis 15:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I see no problem with this going live now. -- Emsworth 22:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys

Thanks to everyone who responded. Every comment was appreciated. I've copied the comments here and elsewhere to a the following page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution. It also has a series of temp pages that show how the boxes would work in reality. Please give as much feedback as you can and spread the word around to anyone you think would like to contribute on the issue, on both sides of the debate.

Slán FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

styles

Thank you for your invitation, I will take a look at it. File:Gryffindor.jpgGryffindor 10:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ditto! Thanks! :) El_C 11:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Argh! Here we go again... (return of ugly Pope Infobox)

See Template talk:Infobox Pope#The return of the toccolors. User:Ta bu shi da yu decided to instert a "infobox" class into the template, thus ridding the box of the nice, elegant style the community had agreed on. Note that the talk page is misnamed; the toccolor class isn't being discussed, but rather the infobox one. Though I'd give you a heads-up on this one. I'm kind of sick of this discussion. If I had my way, we'd just make all of the infoboxes like the previous design, thus getting rid of those ugly, gray/brown things.

Oh, and I also think the the use of the style templates for the various leaders are a great idea. I have one question: are you going to place the boxes on each and every leader page, or just on a main one? (Example: putting the pope style box on Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and the rest vs. putting it on Pope). Regards, Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 13:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Community?

Are you talking about the wider community or just the Pope editing community? I have added an RFC on this template. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I was never aware of it, and if I was not aware of the vote then I doubt you asked the wider community. Please give evidence that you made an announcement about the vote somewhere other than the template page. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No response to my arguments. I agree I should be blocked, but I also believe that the vote is not valid as you didn't take it to the wider community. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere on Wikipedia does it say that unless Ta bu shi da yu is aware of a vote taking place informed on something it is not valid. In any case, the issue of papal infoboxes was discussed on various pages before becoming focused on the talk page. People can't force others to come along. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. To quote the page "The survey should be announced on Wikipedia:Current surveys. If it is a major survey, then you may also list it on Wikipedia:Announcements. Other places that you should consider listing it include Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Watch." - Ta bu shi da yu 01:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and can you close off your sig tag? It's leaking into my comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, after a little research I found: Wikipedia:Infobox#Religious_leaders MediaWiki_talk:Monobook.css#New_infobox_class which look like the appropriate places to discuss these issues - note that although there is not (at least what I would call) widespread discussion the discussion to implement the infobox style equally had very little discussion and was implemented anyway. It looks like only a few people cared enough to even comment, and if the people on the pope articles care enough to make their's different while keeping in the overall style - what should Tabushida care? 64.12.117.14 02:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It is closed. It is leaking because Wikipedia is acting nutty at the moment. My talk page appeared all striken out at one stage mid-sentence, yet when I left it and re-entered it it was perfect. Unprotected pages are showing up as protected. There is obviously a glitch in the system (again). I also voted a few minutes ago and my sig appeared all wrong. But when I re-entered the page and then left it again it appeared all right!!! Wikipedia occasionally appears to do nutty things. When it does its system usually crashes. I guess another crash is around the corner. Oh damn! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually the reason seems to be that you wrote your text right up against my sig. But the rest is true. Be ready for a crash, though. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Your fan club

You seem to be attracting a lot of admirers! Deb 16:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The admiration is for a good solution to a difficult wikiproblem. There's also no doubt that Jim knows his stuff in many areas. But that doesn't change my mind on other matters; I call 'em as I see 'em. Pete 22:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Evidently my sense of humour is a bit obscure... Deb 21:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Short Departure

Hey Jtdirl: Just wanted to let you know that I am departing for a week on a short Wikivacation. So that my voice may be heard in any pope infobox polls, votes, or other things, I enable you as my voting proxy on Wikipedia until I return. I trust that our thinking in infobox design are alike. Thanks, Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 03:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Use this link while voting in order to clear up matters: http://tinyurl.com/e2vnc. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 03:21, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

The attempt to force all template boxes to one format

See - Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation which I put up for deletion 152.163.101.14 04:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Silverhorse

I've started an RfC on Silverhorse. I'd appreciate if you checked it out and commented or endorsed it. Thanks! Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverhorse --Golbez 09:09, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

User: Carlton

Jtdirl. Even though you are a left wing nutjob ;-) I have to admit that Carlton is an asshole and has been spewing his own preferences for what is "notable" on many articles I have contributed over the past year. The man seems to really hold a grudge and carry vendettas doesn't he? Is there anyway to ban or suspend him? His treatment of you during your dating fiasco was childish and ridiculous!

Third Home Rule Act

Hi there. Any idea about the status of this act? My understanding was that it was enacted, but implementation was postponed. This would mean that the recent edit to Irish Republican Army was incorrect, as was the statement on Irish Home Rule Bills that it was passed by Parliament but not enacted. Palmiro 18:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Hi, JT, how are you doing? Thanks for the welcome back. Zoe 20:56, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist & Ahoghill Entry

Once more, LP attempts to subvert wiki entries to conform to his own POV. What happened in Ahoghill was terrible, but what he wrote about it was just as bad. (I lived in Ahoghill from 1984 until 1999, just FYI). His implications and claims outlined regarding the attacks is just another example of bigoted POV that does not belong here. He should not be allowed to wikipedia entries to forward his own disgusting bigotry. There is no excuse that he can give for this activity. He has been banned several times before for such entries, and I'm certain that he will be banned again.

I bring this to your attention as an editor whom I trust and respect, and who is already aware of LP's track record. Please let me know where I should direct any further complaints.

Nearside 02:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Your comment on the 3RR notification page

You wrote: "You are like a cleric caught with his pants down preaching about the evils of sex and the joys of celibacy!!!" I would like to just say how disgusting and offensive I find your comments. There was no need for the comment, and feel that this was a largely unprovoked personal attack. Suggest you read ad hominem. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed. Is that what I wrote? I thought I had written that "you act . . ." not "you are . . ." If I wrote the are rather than act then it was a typo which I should have spotted and didn't and apologise. But no it is not an attack. It is sarcasm, and deserved sarcasm given your behaviour. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Styling

I have a question; why does Edward VIII of the United Kingdom begin with "King Edward VIII"? I'm browsing some random other pages (James II of England, William IV of the United Kingdom) and they lack "King". --Golbez 07:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Right, that's what I thought, but then I saw this diff from you ;) [18] --Golbez 19:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Blocking again

Hi, You've blocked 62.254.32.18. This is belf-cache-2.server.ntli.net, one of NTL's caches for Belfast so you've blocked a lot of innocent people. It's easy enough to work around but some people will not know how. Please lift the block. --Cavrdg 08:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion on styles

Hello, my fellow countryman. Thanks for your message. I liked the way the articles began with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, etc., but I think this is an excellent compromise, so I'm happy to support it. Also, I'm very much in favour of having all the articles the same. And it's likely to put an end to the edit wars - although I think they had already died down a bit. Anyway, the boxes look nice, and they make it very easy to find the necessary information. So, support, and congratulations! (By the way, what are you doing out of bed at 03.22 UTC? Isn't that 04.22 BST?) Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 16:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

John Charles McQuaid

I notice you saw the edits on this page recently - you might be interested in the lastest edits on John Charles McQuaid - I reverted again but that user might be ready to dig in! Djegan 18:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Styles

I am nost sure I recall where the discussion had got to. Could you please send me a link to the discussion you feel has more or less reached consensus, I'll give you my views. DES ^(talk) 22:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not wild about the boxes -- I would prefer a text solution, either in the lewad or in a standard special "Titles & styles" section. But there is support for the info boix idea, adn it is not horrid. Give it a try, and see who bows :) DES ^(talk) 22:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, for your information, in the first US congress there was a proposal that the official style for the president be "His Elective Majesty", a style copied from one used for Stadtholders in ther Netherlands, I belive, or maybe3 members of their Senate (which was called something else). I could probably dig up a cite on this if you are actually intersted. DES ^(talk) 22:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to move on to a discussion of implementation. john k 03:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Pope styles

Hi. I noticed you put this box onto Pope John Paul I. I like the design, and what the idea is. I would suggest that you put <br clear="right" /> at the top of the template, because otherwise it will stick out into the article. I mention this here rather than doing it myself because I presume that there will be other styles templates that you are creating as well. Cheers, [[smoddy]] 22:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Style Wars

The boxes were such a good idea; why are you going on fighting the Style Wars by putting Pope into the first sentence of Pius VI twice? Septentrionalis 02:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, with luck you won't have lit the fuse. But an edit which specifically added that one word and nothing else might have restarted the whole thing if some anti-style fanatic had been watching Recent Changes. Please don't try to make Wikipedia consistent until we have a consensus policy. (Btw, I checked one of the Renaissance Popes, and Henry IV of France, and they don't have title as first word either.)

We weren't lucky, but I stamped on it, and the fuse seems to be out, dv. [19] Septentrionalis 23:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

On the merits, I have no strong opinion on the question of initial titles. In this case, however, I think it makes the sentence heavy, and changing the second pope to Supreme Pontiff would make it worse. (I won't change it back, because I don't want the pro-style fanatics to see me do it either.) Septentrionalis 20:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Order of Hibernians

This article seems to need some work, especially with regards to Irish sectarian conflicts, to achieve a good balance. I can't find much historical information on the AOH in Ireland.... just the AOH in America, and the information is obviously POV.

Any thoughts?

Roodog2k 19:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikistalking guideline proposal

Greetings - We're currently working on a wikistalking guideline proposal to reflect that the Arbitration Committee has deemed this to be a bannable offense. I'm trying to get community input to help develop this article. Unfortunately a few of the usual suspects are also trying to disrupt this process and dismantle work being done to better the article. If you have a moment please drop by Wikipedia:stalking and make any applicable changes to the article or post any suggestions you may have on the talk page. Thanks! Rangerdude 18:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This user, User:Halfinch, posted a comment on the stalking page. He seems very familiar with you and very sympathetic to user:Skyring. -Willmcw 22:40, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Formal Caution: Three Revert Rule

You are repeatedly reverting Victoria of the United Kingdom to include matter whose appropriateness in the lead of the Article (regardless of its accuracy) is part of any ongoing discussion of which you are fully aware. Your attention is respectfully drawn to the Three Revert Rule and to the general principles of collaboration and etiquette with which you, from your long and valuable participation here, are familiar. --StanZegel 03:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Queen Victoria Surname Discussion

The dialog has been moved to a separate talk page at Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom/Surname. --StanZegel 18:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Style boxes

Hi,

apologies for the delay - but it looks like your style boxes are finding wide acceptance already. I think they're a good idea, and help to resolve the minor POV issue with the ambiguity of the use/mention distinction of styles in intros. I'm not sure about the placement in all cases, e.g. in Pope John Paul II the style box is right-aligned with the assassination section.--Eloquence* 07:18, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Image:MARY 2.JPG

Image deletion warning

Image:MARY 2.JPG has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Auld Bitch

Thats what that statue was called by locals at the time, and we use the "floozie in the jacuzzi" and "tart with the cart" nicknames in the article, so personally I can't see why we can't use the Auld Bitch one. However, nobody has adressed my antique talk page question about wheter the statue is in Sydney or in Victoria - e.g. Melbourne. --Kiand 21:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll just say that as a non-dub born after the statue was removed, I'd heard the nickname extensively... --Kiand 22:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy

If you've had problems, you might be interested in Wp:rfar#User:DreamGuy. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)