Sorry about that, I'll try that write up again keeping to one subject, and add the Claddagh Ring piece onto the page you suggested. On Thomas Bush/P.Moore, how do you start up a new page for Bush? Thank's for your earlier help, I'm logged in as a new member now and managed to upload a *.jpg image.
Hmm, interesting. I should think if that is true, then what that is indicated is that the lord-lieutenancy wasn't broken up until 1974. I have ordered a copy of the local government act in order to get it direct rather than filtered through prejudices, and this should be arriving soon. So we'll see. Morwen 12:14, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi, there actually is a verb "to task," it means to give someone a job to do, or to cause someone a lot of pain by working them too hard...it's in Moby Dick ("he tasks me, he heaps me..."), and from there it was borrowed in the Wrath of Khan, where is probably more familiar now ("he tasks me, and I shall have him"). It's pretty archaic I guess, and I'm not sure it was used properly in the Dieppe Raid article, but it really is a verb. Adam Bishop 19:42, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't think it's awful usage...it's a perfectly cromulent word :) Adam Bishop 06:23, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It was indeed truly terrible! Ed g2s 00:07, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi Mintguy. You might want to look at the village pump. A newbie is campaigning to replace British and the adjective for the UK (and its previous states) by United Kingdom and has been making article and links changes to that effect. FearÉIREANN 22:42, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Wow, just came across your "list of peers to be disambiguated" from a google search...is that the full list of peerage title creations from C.P.? john 09:32, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. By the way, I think that Lord Emsworth (with some corrections by me) has managed to put a complete list of current peers on the order of precedence page. That man is a machine about that page...with the sources he cites on my talk page you can find a list of all the extant, abeyant, dormant, and attainted titles in all five peerages. (You have to do a google domain search to find the pages not directly linked, though, and there's some inaccuracies due to the list being a few years old.) I also have at hand somewhere a complete list of all Dukedoms created, and also the Handbook of British Chronology lists all higher peerage titles (Duke, Marquess, Earl) created in the peerages of England and Scotland, and in the peerages of Ireland and Great Britain before 1714. Complete Peerage is probably the best source, but it's a pain in the ass to access (I have the first volume of the 1911 C.P. checked out, though, and can check the titles it has against your first list, if you'd like) john 09:43, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes you can email me, just use the email this user feature. Or you can head over to the IRC channel, I'm often there when I'm online. About not posting the URL: if I were you I wouldn't be allowing access anyway. I looked in my apache error logs yesterday and was surprised to find about a dozen denied hits from various locations -- and that was just from a few hours on a dial-up connection. If your setup isn't secure, you should probably deny access to everywhere except my IP range and localhost. BTW I'm flying to Sydney tomorrow morning, for a week and a half, and I haven't packed yet :) So I can't guarantee anything. -- Tim Starling 10:04, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
I made it quite clear why I removed the bit about Rugby on the edit summary, it was already covered on the Wiliam Webb Ellis page and was a duplication. At the time someone wrote that comment on the Rugby School talk page the William Webb Ellis article did not exist.
If you look at the edit history, you will note that the comment on the Rugby School talk page was written in November 2002, wheareas the William Webb Ellis article was not written until February 2003.
Besides youre additions seem a bit too POV for my liking, there is no evidence that the William Webb Ellis incident did not take place, (there's no strong evidence that it did either) and there is evidence that the type of football played at Rugby at the time did not involve picking up the ball, and hence if WWE did pick up the ball he was cheating (heck I come from Rugby, we have a tourism industry based on this stuff you know :-) ) G-Man 14:36, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought about removing that america-centric part from the news blurb aswell. Thanks for removing it. --snoyes 17:33, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for reality, Mintguy!! --Merovingian 10:00, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
Since he won't take the hint, better to blank the articles and protect them, I think. Morwen 14:04, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
I was just trying to standardize the military history of XXX and cuisine of XXX titles, because they were inconsistent. It seemed logical to do it this way because it's how most other country articles are formatted. If it disturbs you that much, move them to the other format. Tuf-Kat 19:53, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC) (P.S. You need a talk archive, up to 50 kb now)
"(it doesn't mark the spot, as can be gleaned if one reads the rest of the article)"
mintguy, in a way it does mark the spot, as the height of the column is supposed to be the exact length from the base of the column to the point where the fire started. Steeev 19:00, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Mintguy, you might be interested in the debate going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage, where the idea that articles on peers should include in the title a reference to the peerage is undergoing discussion. -- Lord Emsworth 02:07, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
The subsidiary titles of the Duke of Wellington are: Marquess of Wellington (1812), Marquess of Douro (1814), Earl of Mornington (1760 - but only inherited by the Dukes of Wellington in 1863), Earl of Wellington (1812), Viscount Wellesley (1760 - inherited in 1863), Viscount Wellington of Talavera and Wellington (1809), Baron Mornington (1746 - also inherited in 1863) and Baron Douro (1809). The Viscounty of Wellesley and the Barony and Earldom of Mornington are in the Peerage of Ireland; the remaining are in the Peerage of the United Kingdom.
There still seems to be the indication that the title Marquess of Wellington was granted in 1812. -- Lord Emsworth 11:34, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
(yeah, I changed it back after someone changed it otherwise, I think)...but I'm actually posted to note that we're voting on peer naming conventions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage, if you want to participate. john 06:24, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I see that you requested on Talk:Film that cinema be reverted back to its previous state. If you feel strongly about this, I would appreciate a more thorough statement of the reasons for your request, and/or a response to the reasons discussed on that page for the work I've been doing. --Michael Snow 06:01, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Response to message on User talk:Michael Snow: I would like to correct your assumptions about what was proposed, and what I have actually done. I initially proposed moving Film wholesale to Cinema. Due to the concerns raised, I determined that would be inappropriate. Contrary to your assumptions, I have not moved content from Film to Cinema. The content that is currently on Cinema is what I wrote independently.
I recognize that Film is linked on the main page, and we should be careful in editing such a page. Check the edit history and you will see that I have made only minor edits to Film, primarily just to polish up the external links. Ultimately, I would advocate changing the link on the main page to Cinema, as well as adding Photography, which for some reason is not listed on the main page, instead of the confusing and ambiguous link to Film. Also, the content on Film is pretty mediocre for an article linked on the main page - barely two paragraphs of any substance, plus a bulleted list and a haphazard bunch of internal and external links.
I love the Theater/Plays example you used, because I think it supports my point. Theater is the best name for the field (and like Cinema, also happens to be a name for the place), while Play is the name for the individual presentation. And like Film, Play is an important word in other fields, whose usages need to be addressed. Check out the articles there, which are of much better quality than what we've developed so far by working exclusively on Film. They're a good model for where the Cinema and Film pages need to go.
Responding to your other concerns: I know that people tend to study at film school rather than cinema school. Accordingly, the first paragraph at Cinema mentions this, includes the term Film in bold text, and also has a link to Film. I consider that an appropriate concession, but I don't believe more is necessary. As for clubs, a quick search on Google showed a number of cinema clubs, and I see no reason to conclude that film club is the predominant usage. Personally, in college I attended a number of movies shown by an international *cinema* club at my school. --Michael Snow 17:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
As I stated, I do believe Cinema should be the lead article on the subject. I don't see anything wrong with that as an "ambition". For now, I will hold off on reworking the links to Film. To explain the thinking by which I think the links should work - as I indicated on the Film talk page, if the usage refers to a single film/movie/motion picture, the link should go to Film; if the usage refers to film/movies/motion pictures as a field, the link should go to Cinema.
I have posted the issue on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Hopefully that will help produce a consensus, instead of just the two of us arguing. --Michael Snow 22:25, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Does what I've done to the Pandas as an example on Wikipedia talk:Extended image syntax solve your problems with the new syntax? Is it just that you think the boarder is ugly? Some users have been reporting strange things like the text not wrapping around the images (which should still happen with the new thumbnails!), but I get the impression from your comments you're not having things happen like that. Correct me if I'm wrong!
Would you like me to remove the frames from around the pictures in the Hutton Inquiry? I put all but one of the pictures on that page. fabiform | talk 06:16, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There's also "mad as a hatter"--there are plenty of examples of mad meaning insane. But if you go up to an American and say, "Jimmy's mad," the American will say, "Why? What's he got to be angry about?" Not, "Of course, he's mad. That guy's crazier than a junebug!" jengod 17:58, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
Just to let you know - the major edit of the requested articles is done. I would add Roy of the Rovers to the list myself, but I have no idea what it is (or section to put it in). →Raul654 13:01, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I'm only repeating what is said at the other language versions of the same subject. Anyway, if what you say is true, then according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), you should make it look like this:
Joanne Kathleen Rowling, born Joanne Rowling (born July 31, 1965), etc
Removing the "tasty" bit for NPOV was intended as self-parody more than anything. Although I'm not sure how encyclopedic it is to refer to a given food as "tasty"! Philwelch 21:44, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
How is The Lumberjack Song exempted by fair use? It includes the entire text of the copyrighted work, along with other text of further transcripted portions of a copyrighted work? --Tablesaw 10:16, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
I certainly understand that position. I tend to just 'edit first and ask questions later'-but then resort to discussion before any editing back (for total removals, usally not meshes). Of course this causes trouble for me somtimes especially when my writing is not up to snuff or with more controversial issues ( as in this case) but its worked reasonbly well. I tried to rewrite some of that info to be more accurate with what you had mentioned, its still kind of rough. I put some other ideas down in the page discussion as well for the page too. Greyengine5 02:51, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You made some complaints about the way thumbnails look with the new image syntax, so I'm just letting you know a design competition has been launched to replace the gray border and icon. You can add your suggestions till March 15, or just vote on other people's suggestions after that date: meta:Image Box. :) fabiform | talk 15:26, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Although "Baroness" is more commonly used than "Lady" (at least on the internet and in tabloids - the better sections of the media use "Lady"), "Lady" is the correct version, and has been so for centuries. (Peeresses in their own right are styled in the same way as the wives of peers, and the use of "Baroness" is simply an affectation of some life peeresses who want to distinguish themselves from the wives of knights, which has unfortunately been picked up on by some of the more ignorant sections of the media. [Having "The" before their title distinguishes them anyway, so it's not even necessary...]) I asked Lord Emsworth (who seems to be the Wikipedia peerage expert, and has done about 95% of the work on peers here) about it last night, and he said to use "Lady" (he's changed a few to "Lady" himself). If you feel it should be "Baroness", feel free to comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage, but I think Wikipedia should aspire to using the correct form, as I don't think "most common name used" should be used to create inaccuracies. Proteus 13:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Hansard is no longer an accurate source for correct form, since it is published by the government, and the current government is completely ignorant and careless of correct form (the PM's own website, for instance, calls Lady Amos "Baroness Valerie Amos" in several places, which is obviously completely incorrect. [Incidentally, that incorrect form is becoming increasingly popular in some circles. Google reveals 178 for "Lady Kennedy of The Shaws", 558 for "Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws" and 1,620 for "Baroness Helena Kennedy". I doubt many would advise calling her that in Wikipedia.]). When it instituted that change, it even stupidly applied it to peeresses who weren't Baronesses, like Lady Saltoun, who is a Lady of Parliament, and it was only when they kicked up a fuss that Hansard got it right. They also messed up the form for referring to Marquesses when they rewrote the standing orders, and had to correct it after the mistake was pointed out by a hereditary peer. All in all, Hansard isn't really worth using as an indicator of what is correct. Proteus 14:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please check my changes to Augusto Pinochet carefully. I've been trying to counter the Marxist assumption that he was the worst of the worst. I'm open to suggestions.
Perhaps we should say, for each of the changes I made:
Marxists say that he was bad because he did this, but
Why do you insist on the variant "flavour" over variant "flavor" on the potato chips page? The entire article, save "flavour" favors US variants... I mean, the article is at potato chips, not crisps, after all. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This discussion has happened before. JT, the author of the flavouring section if you recall, didn't have a problem with the change, and I'm not sure why you're reviving the "issue" months later. Potato Chips may well be "understood" in the UK, but it's clearly the AE form. Potato chips were invented in the US, I might add, which may or may not be relevant. It is true that the flavored section was introduced with BE spelling initially, but that creates two different variants within the article. It's all well and good that you don't want to see BE spellings banished from the 'pedia... a position which I support. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that BE spellings should be used every single place they're initially written... the same is true for AE. I also think it's a bit bizarre that you're turning this one article into a larger campaign. Let's deal with the issue at hand. I have no control over what random editors do to Wikipedia articles, any more than you do. Aside from the fact that I reject the underlying assumption that you make that only an American would "fix" BE to AE spellings, this is not a case of someone doing that. As stated in the discussions of months past, and in the edit summaries, this is an attempt to standardize one usage throughout the article. I'm not engaged in any campaign to systematically remove BE from the 'pedia and even use it myself in relevant articles. Furthermore, your characterization of the change as insidious, is, frankly, personally offensive. Aside from the fact that the argument being used here could NOT be applied to all BE uses (since I'm suggesting standardizing usage WITHIN an article, it's hardly fair to say that articles that are ENTIRELY BE would be at danger from such a proposition) even if it COULD be used for such ends, it is NOT being used for such ends, by me, in this or any other instance. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:08, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You used the phrase insidious AGAIN when you left the message on my talk page. At that point, I was the most recent person to change the spelling. How am I supposed to interpret that? Furthermore, the article DOES use two forms, the TITLE uses AE and the BODY uses BE. "Flavoured" is understood perfectly well in the US, but that doesn't make it NOT BE. Similarly, BE uses the phrase "crisps" (as it says in the article), whereas AE uses "potato chips". Mutual intelligibility is not an issue, "potato chips" isn't BE, it it? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I did say that at the time... and I still think that, as the article stands, that "flavor" is the proper way to go. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:37, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with what I "like" but rather with what I consider to be most appropriate. But aside from that, I tried that already and you seemed to take issue with my change. I'm unconvinced that it would go better this third time. So, feel free to also change "potato chips" to "crisps" throughout, you won't hear any arugments from me. Just please don't leave the hybrid article as it is. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If you read the above, you'll notice that I told you that I wasn't planning on changing the article. There are hundreds and hundreds of cases of people failing to carefully read others comments and making assumptions about their motives. Some editors respect people enough to carefully read what they write and give them the benefit of the doubt. Please do likewise. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:01, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ok, misunderstandings happen. I'm willing to let bygones be bygones. Sign me up for the list of people who don't want to see BE erased. I'm more than happy to yell at people who allow their ignorance and rudeness to AE-ize the 'pedia willy-nilly. (That centre/center guy that JT wrote about springs to mind) No hard feelings? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:52, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I took a look at the merged football article and I think the history section is excellent. I am tempted to suggest it for featured article status (though I have found that is more trouble than it is worth sometimes... too many well-meaning but under-informed people pile in and damage articles). The excellent history section had the effect of a making the other bits look slightly shabby .. maybe the end has slightly too many headers.. I made one edit to try and smooth the transition from the history to the modern. Sorry I can't make more comments about the content rather than just the presentation, but you know a darn sight more about the history than I do! Pete/Pcb21(talk) 17:23, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
See my comments, regarding yours, on my talk page. Grant65 17:48, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The Eton games are a good addition; are there any other surviving public school games? Grant65 (Talk) 03:21, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Re. you last message on my talk page, I think you'll find all of your comments are there, although some were moved further up the page --- I thought it better to keep "General comments" at the bottom of the page. Anyway, feel free to restore the page to its original condition if you like.Grant65 (Talk) 20:12, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
Good idea to move the Dublin names. I realise they don't belong in the main article. Don't bother apologising - you're improving the article - and I love when my work is edited mercilessly - It means people are noticing it! Ludraman 18:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why did you say that Mermaids at Brighton was under the GFDL? You also need to say who the author is. If it is old then it may well be public domain - however we need some info as to where you got it from. Secretlondon 22:59, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The post card will be under copyright - scanning in an image doesn't allow you to release it under the GFDL. Secretlondon 23:15, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Once upon a time (well, when wikipedia was ~50000 articles;-) I took some lists of topics from several web sites, a computer dictionary (thus all the XXX Virus links), the Probert encyclopedia IIRC, and some sources I honestly forgot. Recently, I set up a copy of the current database, extracted all titles, and ran a Perl script (my first real one!) to remove articles we already have (list 2) from the once-collected list (list 1). Said script also generated the index and the pages. Then it was copy'n'paste...
I can give you the Perl script if you're interested. --Magnus Manske 08:28, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for tidying up my vandalised user and talk pages. I was just going to do it myself, but I was too busy issuing a final warning to the bastard and then barring him after his reply on the talk page! -- Arwel 17:56, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I didn't upload in any particular pattern, but I mostly kept the image numbers from the source (http://www.bartleby.com). An image search for "gray" should return all the ones I uploaded. Sorry that I have no further info on this; maybe we could upload the missing ones and list them on asubpage of Wikipedia:Images with missing articles? --Magnus Manske 15:14, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK. I just started wget-ing the images, to convert them to PNG and upload the missing ones. I also found that I apparently uploaded some two times, as "grayXXX.png", and with a more descriptive title. I'll sort them out later. --Magnus Manske 15:41, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The only way I can think of is to make (really small) thumbnails; this will display "missingimage" or a thumbnail. How about: [[image:gray1234.png|thumb|left|gray1234.png]], resulting in gray1234.png? --Magnus Manske 16:03, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The DB should be all right; the most stressing task for the server will be thumbnail generation, which has to be done only once. To make sure, only try a small batch and reload, which will generate the thumbnails; reload again, and see how the server reacts. I also suggest dividing the list with headins for subsection editing. --Magnus Manske 17:25, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, looks cool! I have downloaded and converted the missing images, and upload them now. --Magnus Manske 19:00, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have split Wikipedia:Gray's Anatomy images with missing articles into smaller pages (50 thumbnails each). Also, I have now uploaded all from #1-#265 in a row. For #1-#114, I have added the original description to the image description. If you'd like to help out with the description for the others, feel welcome ;-) --Magnus Manske 22:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Did you mean to oppose Jamie Bulger - you wrote "support"? fabiform | talk 10:14, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yeah I got done pretty bad by an April Fool courtesy of my girlfriend this morning... I'm wasting no time getting rid of them on WP :-). Pete/Pcb21(talk) 15:33, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
OK thanks for the explanation, I'll not make anymore sudden name changes on this topic. I just think the whole football (soccer) seems clumsy, but I guess I'll have to make do.
I am very much in favour of leaving it as football (soccer), I checked how many links there were and it is hundreds Bob Palin 14:13, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Agree that the Eden article needs a rewrite. Why, though, did you move it to the other location? I thought we were currently working on the "Twentieth century prime ministers should generally be at their name, rather than their title" principle? john 15:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, that option was voted down in that lengthy poll conducted some months ago. Some peers are to be represented by their given names, so long as they are better known by that name. Bertrand Russell, for instance. I think pretty much all 20th century PMs were to be included in that group as well. john 15:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
So tell me what is the correct procedure for reversing redirects between two articles, for people who don't have the power to delete articles? Adam 01:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand why would you make wholesale deletions of valid game shows, just because they happened to be mis-categorized (probably due to the UK-centric page layout), instead of just moving them? (Oh, and I found the game show Fame with my second search string on Yahoo--had to -hall to clear the clutter). Niteowlneils 02:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oops, my bad--didn't think to check the talk page. I recognized all but two of the titles, so I put them all back as US shows (assuming that if they copied shows from somewhere else, someone from whereever they originated could clarify them). Of the two I didn't recognize for sure, the Boy Meets Boy article says it's American, and IMDB had a listing for He Said She Said that mentions a host that is associated with US game shows. My first attempt, "fame game", got mostly sports hits, but when I changed it to "fame game" -hall, hit #3[1] reminded me of Fame, which I didn't watch, but did see promos for (actually that's the case with most of them--I've watched ...be a Millionaire and Weakest Link several times, a few Bachelorettes (the Alaska ones, mostly for the scenery), some of Joe Millionaire, and I've watched Family Feud in the past, but that's about it.) Niteowlneils 18:51, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Great Britain
Great Britain is a political grouping of England, Wales and Scotland plus some other territories. The majority of Great Britain is the majority of the main island in the British Isles. So it is plausible to use the term for the political grouping as a term for the island.
Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland or the people that live there. Because there is conflict in Northern Ireland, then the wrong terminology is sometimes used deliberately to suggest that the UK should not include that part of its territory. It may be used accidentally by people unaware of the dispute, but accidental mistakes can still be annoying.
You are correct to say that GB is used in sport and elsewhere. There are all sorts of domain specific anomalies that make it difficult to be definitive about the term to be used in any particular situation. I know some of the anomalies but not all of them. But they are anomalies within the particular domain, not in politics. None of the anomalies can be used to prove that the terms GB and UK are synonymous. So when it comes to suggestions that somebody is an ambassador to Great Britain or that Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of Great Britain, then it is definitely better to use 'United Kingdom' or 'Britain'.
For some reason, Americans are particularly prone to saying GB rather than UK or merely Britain. So it does not surprise me that this is appears to be the default term on Wikipedia. You are correct that it does not mean 'Britain is Great' but that may be what some authors think is the rationale behind the term and that 'Britain' is simply a colloquial version of 'Great Britain'. Thus when doing formal writing, they simply add the prefix 'Great' and think nothing much of it. Perhaps it is because the nation was correctly called GB up till American independence and a bit after. Thus that in that part of US history lessons, GB is the correct term.
I am not attempting to remove all instances of GB, only the ones I believe to be incorrect. I regard the terms 'Britain' and 'United Kingdom' as synonymous although not everybody does (I think the 'Britain' page actually mentions concerns with this). So I don't mind which of those two terms replaces incorrect use of 'Great Britain'. As requested by another user, I am also making more use of the term 'Britain'. Feel free to draw my attention to instances where I have got the change wrong.
Bobblewik 11:04, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just to add some more about the linking. As I said, I use the terms Britain and United Kingdom as synonyms. Therefore I have no logical problem with text on the page being linked as follows: Britain text linked to 'Britain' page or linked to 'United Kingdom' page United Kingdom text linked to 'Britain' page or linked to 'United Kingdom' page
I am happy to note your recommendation that both Britain and United Kingdom text should be linked to the United Kingdom page. Bobblewik 11:13, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You said "I think formal use of UK is very recent, hence the Olympic team of Great Britain, the GB car sticker etc.. I'd even go so far as to say that the use of UK has increased dramatically since the rise of the Internet and the .uk suffix."
You may be right. Although I would put more emphasise on the rise of international institutions in the 20th century and an increasing acknowledgement of the legitimacy of regional politics. This may reflect the cultural and political dominance of people who can give their address as GB.
You also said "I think that the use of GB in text should not be expunged entirely when the context relates to it's former usage even if technically incorrect."
I am not sure that I understand what you are saying. It is correct to say America gained independence from Great Britain. But it is not correct to say the people of Great Britain elected Winston Churchill. The correct statement would be either: the people of Britain elected Winston Churchill the people of the United Kingdom elected Winston Churchill
I don't care which of these last two it is.
It used to be common, and regarded as acceptable, to use the incorrect term England when referring to the whole nation. I am well aware that many people still make this mistake. I am just as likely to correct that as to correct misuse of the term Great Britain. I hope you would too. Bobblewik 12:35, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Concerning tree houses - yes of course - but are they exactly the same in other countries? Do boys build tree houses in all other countries? Do they still do it? (I didn't want to assume that my experience was universal - haven't seen any tree houses in California in the 2000's yet.) :-) -- Marj 17:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Although there is no serious claim to Newton's being involved in astrology, the same cannot be said about alchemy. The astrological and astronomical concepts of the time did tend to be commonly imported in the study of alchemy. Eclecticology 18:29, 2004 Apr 23 (UTC)
The first Lord Sainsbury (ennobled 1962, died 1998) was simply "Lord Sainsbury" (his territorial designation was "of Drury Lane in the Borough of Holborn", but there was no "of" in his actual title), and, of his two currently living ennobled relatives, Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover (his son) is a Conservative and Lord Sainsbury of Turville (his nephew) is Labour and a Science Minister. It's the second of these two who features in the Rich List (the list doesn't actually give his full title but does state that he's a Science Minister). Proteus 23:06, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Actually, my mistake. I am moving it back now, I am working on the list of companies in the FTSE 100 - however Marks & Spencer plc is a subsidiary of Marks & Spencer Group plc, so I'm moving it back. Very foolish of me...
Calexico(Talk) 11:27, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In essence, Marks & Spencer (or Marks and Spencer) is the name of the brand, whereas the main listed company is Marks and Spencer Group plc, I am trying to find out what diffentiates Marks & Spencer Group plc and Marks & Spencer plc, all I know at the moment is the latter is a subsidiary company of the former, but I believe that the latter only runs the stores whereas the former has a whole raft of companies underneath it...I notice that we don't currently have a specific convention on naming of companies. Legally the 3 examples above are separate entities...Calexico(Talk) 12:14, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In the 2003 Annual Report for Marks & Spencer Group plc it shows that Marks and Spencer PLC is a 100 % owned subsidiary that is also involved in retailing.
Calexico(Talk) 12:42, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hi. You asked on Talk:Abu Ghraib (prison) why the images were moved. There was a small discussion (only 2 users) going on in the lines above your comment. The subpage was created because the pictures may be disturbing for some viewers. Maybe you could add your comment why you prefer the photos in the main article page. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:56, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that mav has been removing some images that you uploaded, but doesn't seem to have mentioned it to you yet. See e.g. Image:LondonEye1.jpg. Pete/Pcb21(talk) 07:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, the page history says it is yours (taken from freeimages.co.uk December 2002). I guess the page history got screwed up somehow. Pete/Pcb21(talk) 09:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I see there's a user called "Mintleaf". Is it your son? Deb 16:50, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I always wondered where you got your user name from, anyway. I thought you might be one of those people who are always chewing. Deb 17:10, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
According to the caption, the photo was taken in 1916. All copyrights before 1923 have expired, so the original photo copyrights have expired. The scan was probably taken in modern times, but I read somewhere that Wikipedia considers scans of copyright free 2D work also to be copyright free. I am not a deep expert in this topic, but there are also tons of other pictures on wikipedia with a simillar status. Did this answer your question, or did I miss some legal stuff? -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:23, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following the page history for Football World Cup, but notice that you recently moved the page from FIFA World Cup. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the official name of the competition for the page, with a redirect from Football World Cup? - Madw 01:49, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
While you were away, your animation Image:UK Roundabout 8 Cars.gif has been nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. While it's generally popular, a couple of people have asked that its image page have proper attribution (they're right to be concerned that a featured-picture really is a wikipedia original). I'm almost certain I remember seeing discussions in which you tweaked it, but I can't find 'em now. Assuming you did make it, could you add the relevant info to the image page? Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:06, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! :) The new version took a couple of hours to create, so I really do appreciate the comment. The animation itself was great to begin with, of course, kudos for your work with that. Fredrik(talk) 17:46, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I was updating the England-Portugal game while it was going on. It's only available on pay-per-view in the States, and I don't have access to it at my residence. However, I had live match commentary from uefa.com running in a separate window on my computer. :) Dale Arnett 23:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Each of these articles consists of about two sentences of actual encyclopedic content (mainly just naming the anthem and the date it was written) followed by a large amount of source material. I must disagree about "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" in particular. This article is two sentences of info followed by no less than four different versions of the anthem. The situation is that these three articles are almost exact duplicates of their corresponding entries on Wikisource. "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" in particular is definitely not what a Wikipedia entry should be.
I also think you are mistaken when you say that Wikisource is only for large documents. It contains a growing and substantial collection of short documents. Surely you can see that it is senseless to have a large number of poems and songs duplicated as both a (content-less) wikipedia entry and an identical wikisource entry. If source material is just part of a larger article with substantial content then of course the argument is different.
Hi,
You've added the famous photo of Conrad Schumann (Article Berlin Wall). Do you have this picture in a higher resolution? Cause I need one for the German Wikipedia's WikiReader about the German Democratic Republic. You can mail me: schelle AT onlinehome Dot de
Greetings from Germany ;-)
--80.136.226.94 15:33, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I know (refering to comment on the talk page ofWorld War II, I'm sorry. At first I just thought it was mispelled, I knew about other differences in spelling, but not that one. Then I just thought that I might as well finish it since I'd started it. Then I felt stupid when people were mad. I didn't mean to make such a big deal out of this. Maybe I'll get used to the spellings anyway. Oh well, I still have some of my own pages to spell it my way. I hope this doesn't cause any lasting bitterness, I really would like to get along with other users, I just got out of control. Please accept my apologies--naryathegreat 02:45, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
retoring footnote that was edited out by an apologist
restoring more info that was deleted by an apologist
I believe i'm the 'apologist' referred to here. I'm not trying to start a row but please refrain from personal attacks like this. This is a rule mentioned on Wikipedia:Wikiquette, as well as elsewhere, and i think it's a very good one. It is hard enough to reach consensus on controversial subjects as it is already without name-calling. Iota 20:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In this context i think apologist has more negative connotations than this, but if i am to read from your message that no offence was intended then i'll take your word on that.
I also trust you are not suggesting that my motive in editing the article was to present the PIRA in a more positive light. This would not be a legitimate motive and so such a suggestion would amount to a personal attack. Iota 22:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There was a discussion on life peers' article names, but it seemed that no-one objected. Thus, the new policy is that the peerage dignity be used in the article titles, except in the case of important dignitiaries and officials offered peerages as retirement gifts (including PMs, Cabinet ministers, Archbishops of Canterbury). See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles). -- Emsworth 16:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Just wondering, do you live in the United States? (and if not, please don't make assumptions about what is acceptable here, we would have a better idea than you)--naryathegreat 01:25, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
That shows up as a picture of Karadzic to you? Looks like two lion statues to me. Everyking 11:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Quote [Sseveral of the changes you've made in the last few hours are completly wrong. e.g. [[Cornwall] and Football at the Summer Olympics]
Thanks for the feedback. What is wrong with the changes I made at those pages? Bobblewik 15:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Quote [Please do not think that every single instance of Great Britain is automatically wrong.]
I have targetted those instances where Great Britain is less good than the alternatives. For example Following the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 the British and American governments...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 was clearly wrong. There are many examples like that. I am sure you would want that to be corrected.
Quote [On the Cornwall page it was talking about the Cornish penninsular on the island of [[[Great Briain]]].
OK.
Quote [The International license plate code for the UK is GB.]
You state it correctly. The code is merely misnamed.
Quote [Please don't expunge every instance of Great Britain]
I have not been trying to do that. I have merely targetted those instances where 'Britain' or 'United Kingdom' are justifiable. Britain can mean either United Kingdom or Great Britain.
Quote [You changed the amnesty for the second time and it has been reverted for a second time, because Great Britain is correct. The UK didn't exist in 1747.]
I certainly did not intend to do a second edit and I do not wish to get into an edit war. That was a mistake but it probably occurred simply because it came up in the search list and I see that the United Kingdom is a reasonable term in that text. Yes, the United Kingdom did not exist in 1747. However, the text was: The last act of amnesty passed in Great Britain ... and that phrase is also true if you use the term 'United Kingdom'.
I have tried to make note of previous conversations on this topic, i.e. that the use the term UK is fairly recent. It seems that many Wikipedia authors/editors default to using the term Great Britain. I don't know why. British nationals do not generally default to that term, they will generally say 'Britain' by default.
That is why I have used the term 'Britain' in many cases. An analogy might be if we kept on referring to the Contiguous USA or the 48 States. In many cases it would be correct (e.g. Tony Blair visited the Contiguous USA and spoke to Congress would be technically correct), or sometimes merely a matter of interpretation, but in many other cases it would be wrong. It would be much better if people stopped thinking of the default term as Great Britain.
I have fixed a lot of errors. You have been kind enough on more than one occasion to draw my attention to the few cases where you think there was no error. I hope you will agree that many of the uses of Great Britain were wholly wrong. You may believe that I have a high error rate, but if more than 50% of my edits are correct, then my intervention is worthwhile for Wikipedia as a whole. Certainly all my interventions are well intended. My intention is to be 100% correct but perhaps the percentage is only in the 90's. You may estimate it as lower. I will try to be even more cautious.
Trying to help.
Bobblewik 19:11, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I think we are now getting to the essence of the debate. Quote [I do not consider the use of Great Britain as a synonym of the UK wholly wrong even in the modern context. Plenty of people have no problem with the use of GB as a synonym of UK. I see you wish to expunge it completely (and I mean no offense) as pedantry].
I do not wish to expunge it completely, merely to use appropriate terms for the country. Do not just take my word for it. Read what is said in the following references:
"Great Britain and Northern Ireland together make up the United Kingdom...The best thing that can be said for "British" is that it is not quite as misleading as "American", but it is nevertheless the established term for "relating to the UK".... So what about "Britain"? This is not a term with any legal meaning, but if you ask the English person in the street what country they live in surveys show that more will answer "Britain" than anything else. So it should probably be taken as a back-formation from "British", and therefore to mean "United Kingdom".
Another page from the faq of alt.usage.english (different author)
GREAT BRITAIN. Used by cartographers to denote the biggest of the British Isles, containing most but not all of England, Wales and Scotland. The usage goes back to Roman times ("Britannia Major", distinguished from "Britannia Minor", ie Brittany). It also forms part of the official title of the United Kingdom, in which case it means the political entities of England, Scotland, Wales, including the offshore islands which belong to those countries. Because of the possible confusion between these two usages, "the British mainland" has been suggested as the least ambiguous term for the major island itself.
BRITAIN. The informal name for the United Kingdom.
BRITISH is the formal designation of the nationality of citizens of the United Kingdom, and of certain others.
THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND. The official name for the nation informally referred to as Britain. Often abbreviated to "the UK". The term "United Kingdom" only became the official title in 1801, when the Act of Ireland united Britain and Ireland. It had however been in use since 1707, when the Act of Union incorporated Scotland with England and Wales into the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
"The United Kingdom is made up of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. ... Great Britain, on the other hand, comprises only England, Scotland and Wales. The term ?Britain' is used informally to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
The Prime Minister
www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp
"The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain, however, comprises only England, Scotland and Wales. Great Britain is the largest island of the British Isles."
Thus casual references to the country, the government or the people should default to Britain or United Kingdom. It is convenient that the term Britain is valid over a longer period than either Great Britain or United Kingdom. Thus I am happy to adopt the term Britain widely. If you regard the terms GB and UK as synonymous, then presumably it does not matter if I change GB to either UK or Britain. However, you appear to be specifically objecting to the use of 'UK' and 'Britain'. That is what I can't yet understand. Perhaps the references that I have just quoted are of interest.
Quote [You give an example using "contiguous USA". A better analogy is the use of "America" to mean the USA. It is technically incorrect to use the term the "American President", for two reasons, a) The continental USA does not encompass the entire continent of the America and b) the state of Hawaii isn't even in the Americas. And yet the term American president is used all over the place.]
I agree with you that 'American President' is wrong for the reasons you state. If I wrote such a thing and somebody took the trouble to correct it, I would not object. Bobblewik 21:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wow! 142 references to American President. As I said, I won't object to anybody who corrects it. I may even do some myself if I knew what the correct term should be! Bobblewik 21:35, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Quote [There is no acceptable synonym apart from the long-winded POTUS. "American President" is an acceptable synonym despite its technical inaccuracy.]
OK.
Quote [The same is true for GB with regard to UK. This is my point.]
You made two points:
Long-winded. This does not apply to Great Britain. It is not shorter than United Kingdom or Britain.
Acceptable synonym. If GB and UK are acceptable synonyms for you, then why will you not accept the term UK (or Britain) on Wikipedia?
Quote [Changing every instance of GB to UK or Britain is pure pedantry and in somecases downright wrong]
I have no plans to change every instance of GB to UK or Britain. I don't regard myself as a pedant but if my efforts are regarded as pedantry, I am not unhappy. If I am in some cases downright wrong for fewer than 50% of the edits, then Wikipedia is better off for my intervention.
Trying to help.
Bobblewik 22:13, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have copied this entire section onto my talk page and interleaved it correctly, to make it easier to read all at once. I have also responded to your latest comment. Feel free to continue there. Bobblewik 15:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It is a widely known anecdote/urban legend certainly. However, its relevance on what is supposed to be a serious article about declaration of war is questionable at best. Berwick had been annexed into England in the meantime, and it never constituted a state outside the UK, merely an additional part of it. Morwen - Talk 16:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Looking into it a bit more, the "Wales and Berwick Act" was passed in 1746, making "England" include both Wales and Berwick by default. So even at the time of that declaration of war, "England, Scotland and Berwick-upon-Tweed" was rather a redundancy. Morwen - Talk 16:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Its a nice story about Berwick, and it should indeed stay on that page. It is however, just a joke, really I haven't seen any scholarly opinions saying that it was necessary, any anyway Berwick Council have no authority to declare war or make peace treaties - that being reserved to the royal prerogative. Morwen - Talk 16:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The change of spelling to "mediaeval" was made only yesterday, among several very minor changes, most of which were changing "-" to "—", etc. The spelling has been "medieval" for the last 250 edits, at least. Note also that the use of "medieval" far exceeds the use of "mediaeval", beyond that which is usual for American/British spelling variants. For instance, on Google the ratio of results of "medieval" to "mediaval" is 24:1 whereas for "color" to "colour", it is 5:4. - Centrx
Note that "mediæval" is more correct than "medieval" and is used more in literature. - Centrx 17:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A Google comparison is not useful in itself, but it is useful in comparing the relative use of mediaeval with the relative use of, for instance, colour and theatre. Despite your assertion that the Google search is America-centric, these are in use at approximately 1:1 compared to mediaeval and medieval. - Centrx 16:31, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The key, I suppose is to do searches like "colour -color" vs. "color -colour". These type show the same sorts of results as without that. While Google doesn't prove anything, it does quite heavily indicate that the use of colour, theatre, and labour compares far more closely with the other spellings than the use of mediaeval. This is supporting evidence for the case that mediaeval is not comparable to other British spellings and that its use should not be by reason of equality for standard British and American spellings. - Centrx 16:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Mickey Mouse, BBC Television and World War Two...[edit]
Hello. Thanks for the comment - I actually read it in one of Asa Briggs' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom volumes, which I had out of a library and don't have copies of myself. However, a little search of the BBC website provides this:
The BBC Television Service was suspended from midday today for the duration of the current emergency. After three years of regular broadcasting from Alexandra Palace in London, the last programme viewers were able to see was a Mickey Mouse cartoon[2]
...which doesn't suggest anything about being cut off in the middle. Checking the net, it seems almost all sources do claim it was in the middle, though, so next time I'm in town I shall go to the library and re-check the Briggs. If I've got it wrong I will go through and correct my changes. Angmering 16:34, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If you've got a problem with ME, go to my talk page. Do not go on and revert everything you see, for that is arrogant and childish behaviour. You have been warned that is unacceptable behaviour at Wikipedia. Past grudges and prejudices do not give you a licence to kill other Wikipedia contributers. Jórvíkingr 08:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You do no better than you think about me. Stop with the arrogant automatic reverts on the topics I edit until a public census is reached for that behaviour you perform vigilantly. To put it plainly, follow Wikipedia's rules or face the consequences of sysop/admin probation/removal. This is a second warning and if you ban me again, it's another addition to your corrupt repertoire of auto-hostility. Kenneth Alanson 16:41, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sorry about that - was just trying to group headings to where I thought people could contribute more to the topic. Thanks Master Of Ninja 17:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I was aware of that and I even apologised for it on the featured articles page. I presume this is where you picked this up from. I'll be more careful in future, though if I'm already aware of the problem did this warrant a special message on my page telling me how sloppy I was? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:17, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Mintguy, apologies for my bad attitude in my messages to you. I'm kind of defensive when it comes to my beloved exploding whale article :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 23:42, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I noticed his return last week, as his edits intersected with some items on my watchlist. I figured it would only be a matter of time. I got a laugh out of some of his new contributions.
I think it is not possible right now to muster up the community will to ban him. There has been too much cooling off since last time. He seems to have a very good sense of when things are about to get too hot, and then retreats, either by leaving Wikipedia altogether or by scaling back his contributions to being more harmful and not the broader scope type of he advocates, which I interpret as "creative interpreation/resurrection of (repressed and forgotten) history".
This temporary retreating behavior is the style of a class of other editors whom the community has deemed to pose a chronic problem by their edits. The retreating allows such editors to keep going when they otherwise would have gotten banned.
Nevertheless the cumulative record of his edits stands. I also see that he has already made a big noise on the mailing list. This was very good, since his postings really cast him in the category of other uses who have made similar posts on the mailing lists and who have earned bad names for themselves by the style of their complaints. It is certain that he is the radar screen as a 'problem user' because of this.
As for what to do, I suggest to continue to be impeccable and reverting any edits that you find violate the standards of truth as you see it. In this, you have my full support and encouragement. I know it may seem lonely , but you are not alone. You can always count on my backing you up. I have no doubt that he will escalate his ad hominem attacks until a crisis point is reaches. If we're lucky, he will be the one to complain about you. This will rally the community against him even faster.
Sooner or later, I tend to think, it will reach critical mass and he will loose his priviliges permanently with a hard-ban.
In any case, good luck. I'm with you, as are others. -- Decumanus 22:32, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Accuse me of evil intent all you wish; that doesn't change my honestintentions into a mirror of your belief. The world is what you make of it, which includes those you associate with, encounter, or gossip about regardless of presence. It is pretentious and of no high moral to continue in this manner, Matthew. Ye, it is more of a self-damning spiral of your own course that I have but an arbitrary effect upon. Nevertheless, I will be your token ragdoll in spirit. To do as you may with, after all I am but one surrounded by many birds of the same feather, flocking without insight. Jab and shake me about with your stress, if only in your fiction. Whatever doesn't kill me only strengthens my resolve to hardening. Do not presume to move a mountain, for you will not triumph in your will. Resorting to extremes will not solve your problems with presumptious arrogance on who has a say and why you feel justified that the speech must always be yours and patented by those you approve. Dogmaticmonopoly of belief will never bring peace. You will simply find one more to take my place, as martyrs come and go. Mock me all you might, that's all you have to console your lonely self. In the thick of urbanity yet so far removed at this site, you find it necessary to claim territory. Sorry friend, this is a public domain, not an oligarchy of geeks. If you want that, go to Slashdot. -- Kenneth Alanson 10:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For what reason have you moved, twice now, my comments on Talk:Analogue disc recording out of sequence? The post in question is a follow-up to Graham's, and if you feel the placement of his comments is improper, they should be relocated as well. Austin Hair 09:49, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
For what reason have you moved, twice now, my comments on Talk:Analogue disc record out of sequence? The post in question is a follow-up to Graham's, and if you feel the placement of his comments is improper, they should be relocated as well. Austin Hair 09:50, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
Yes -- I caught that mistake. Anyway -- The medals count tables in 2000 and 1996 should probably be re-labelled and re-formatted to be alphabetized under the heading Statistics by Country. With a disclaimer that they are incomplete and do not reflect team funding or other factors. Davodd 01:02, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
Check out what I did with 2000 Summer Olympics. That stats part needs to be worked on, but I think it improves the page and may make everyone happy - with much work. Davodd 02:48, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
The reason I moved that section here from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions is because that discussion has almost nothing to do with that naming convention issue at hand. It was in response to your contention that you don't break 3RR. Because of that, I would request you move it back here, because when others comment on the basis that allegation, they should edit it here on your talk page. -- Netoholic 14:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
My experience with Kenneth Alan (aside from generally following the dispute) has been on the Nobility page and in reverting edits regarding homosexuality, both of which you've already covered. Unless it would be useful for me to reiterate the points above, I have nothing to add. All the same, thank you for bringing the matter to my attention. Mackensen 00:59, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I too don't really have anything to add, barring a bias towards the Viking history of a place while ignoring the Celtic origin at Etymological list of counties of the United Kingdom (see its talk page). I don't at this moment regard him as having done anything too wrong in this case. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:47, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for leaving the note on my page about the naming standard debate. It does seem to be a very unsatisfactory situation, but please excuse me if I don't get involved at the moment -- real life (or actually real death) is intruding itself into my time at the moment, and my presence on Wikipedia will be intermittent for a while. -- Arwel 14:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Netholic has created a really bogus article at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mintguy. Since he didn't feel the need to let you know it was there, I thought you might like to know. RickK 08:08, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
The Great Storm of 1987 is how it's referred to in the British media, and on the Met Office's website. British disasters are usually named by the year they happened, eg "The Great Heatwave of 2003". A notable exception is the Burns' Day storm.
You bring up an interesting point, however. If there are any other Great Storms around the world from 1987 this page will need to be moved and a disambiguation page created. I'll research it. --Zerbey 19:00, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Just to ask - would it be OK to put a call for help on the discussion page of Football (soccer) to get people to add and proof-read stuff for Football culture?
Also in the football culture article, the Fair Play section, i've used the 10 point code of conduct from the fifa site - can that be uesd as "fair use" as a quotation, as it has a referenced link as well?
Finally my wikipedia random page came up with this (LouisPoinsot.jpg), which apparently needs to be change. I'm assuming you know how to do this.
I wonder would it be possible to have commuter train moved to the more general/locale independent regional rail? They've been merged with attribution (only one users content in the latter, I copied/merged it adding the user name in the edit history for commuter train).
Hi.. yeah it would be great if it could be moved to "Louis Poinsot.jpg" (note new spelling of last name).. once done let me know and I will update the Louis Poinsot page (or please do so). Thank You!Stbalbach
I never said it was anywhere near an abuse of power. I said it was slightly dubious, meaning some people might argue it should have gone to RfD first, whilst others would agree it's a CSD. However, the proper place for disputable deletions is VfU, not RfC since a questionable decision is not usually an abuse of power. If you were on VfU every week, that might be a different matter. Sorry for number of abbreviations in this paragraph. :) Angela. 22:31, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
Hi. Congratulations, you win a Gmail invite! Could you email me (through Wikipedia email, if you wish) your email address and first and last names? I need to input those to give you the invitation. I will then put through the invitation when the Gmail site starts working again (it is down at the moment). - Mark 08:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, doesn't it also say that you should take these with a grain of salt? They are guidelines. They say, they do not work in every case. I think this is obviously one of those cases. Anyway, I don't even like the convention, are we such lemmings that we can't look at title of the article? I follow it, uniformity is unquestionably good, but I question its use on the European page simply because its basically saying: The title of this article is.... and we don't need that on Wikipedia. Also, I don't know if you just saw that on Netaholic's page or not, but I think it was RickK and I'm onto him now too. In any case, he has quite enough to be getting on with, seems like he can't play nice either :-) --naryathegreat 02:04, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
I am going to respectfully request that you no longer target my edits for comment. I have a feeling that you're watching my recent contributions closely, probably in an attempt to "get back" at me. I respect that you have opinions, but I think you're too aggresively following me around, actively challenging my every move. It's childish, and couter-productive. Please do not seek me out, nor try to undermine the natural course of discussions in areas I am editing. Everything I do is in good faith. -- Netoholic@ 17:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I cannot deny that since you decided to pursue this ridiculous RFC againt me, looking at your contributions is something that I have had occasion to do, but this is something that I do for many users, you are not being singled out. Although checking your contributions is a quick way to see in which way you might be pursuing this RFC action. I see nothing wrong in this. Where your contributions have coincided with my interest as in Red Dwarf, and Eerie, Indiana I have made my comment as is my right. As for the Infobox. My notice of this new template is entirely coincidental. Mintguy(T) 17:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This does not read like you're going to respect my request to cease direct comment on my activities. As I said, you can have opinions and voice them, but your demeanor and comments come across as aggressively hostile for seemingly mundane items. If even once you commented on something I did in the positive, I could see you as being objective, but that hasn't happened, and it feels persecutory. Remember, comment on the edit, not the editor. -- Netoholic@ 18:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Netholic, trust me, this guy doesn't know proper etiquette and manners. He has done the same damn thing to me at his arrogant prerogative. Personally, I'd rather not know this individual in real life for I fear it would lead to stalking and a restraining order. Many idiots on the web believe that they can pursue harrassive behaviour without penalty, and antagonise they do. Just to assure you that things are normal, it's happened several times before by other users. Just because the persecutive attitude has been normalised at Wikipedia doesn't give it credence for politeness, which it is obviously not. Sysop status or no, it is absolutely invalid and forbidden as a form of pursuit at this website. He will get what's coming to him, even if not here when he hides behind the computer to abuse, but he will pay somehow. Watch out for the geek-cabal that runs most of Wikipedia, they are ultimate hypocrites and prone to slight autistic behaviour. One must concede that this behaviour implies he is desperate to express his envious ineptitude yet contest that he is a stratum above others in perpetual loggerhead nonsense. Kenneth Alanson 20:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The user_password field has never been accessible by sysops anyway, luckily. I was kind of wondering what you wanted it for :) If you want to know about someone, I suggest you ask me about it on IRC or by email. -- Tim Starling 08:11, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Where do you live? If it is in the south of England and you buy a news paper from a corner shop have you ever heard some one say ta? I doubt it. I never have. But I have heard cheers. Likewise if you go in to a corner shop in Birmingham no one ever says cheers but they often say ta (followed with luv or moit depending on the sex of the parties in the transaction). I don't think that this is by chance. Ta is related to the Scandinavian word for thank you and seems to be most common in the area which was under Dane law.
That is not to say that no one, in the south ever uses ta, or cheers in the North, but it is extremely unusual for a none travelling native the south to use ta ,or a none travelling naive of the north to use cheers for thank you.
I can not speak for all of Ireland. But is cheers is not commonly used in Limerick. My wife picked up the habit living in London (Along with a Twang). When she returned to a visit some years later, she used it without thinking when buying something. For the rest of that stay, a younger niece who had heard her, used it because she had never heard it before and thought it was a really smashen expression.
--
So we have a different sample and have drawn different conclusions :-(
Do you watch East Enders or Coronation Street? I don't but my wife does (sigh!). If you know someone who watches those programs ask them to listen for the two words and we will see if either is used in those sitcoms over the next week. That way at least we will be sampling the same source even if it is artificial.
Hello. I see you've reverted changes I made to Hayford Peirce. Perhaps you're not aware that four of the red links, which I unwikified, were for articles written by Hayford Peirce himself that were recently deleted following vfd discussion. It seems prudent to unlink the titles of his books in the interest of discouraging further self-promotion. Yes? Wile E. Heresiarch 00:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi Mintguy, thanks for reverting that stuff. I never know how to reply to messages to me, so I replied at my own talk and then copied it over here. I dunno what got Wily so obsessed with poor little me. I should have fought at least the Napoleon deletion, I suppose, but decided to let it go. If you put it up for undeletion this time I'll mention the fact it was published in the U.S. by a major publisher, in the U.K. by a major publisher, in Italy ditto, in Germany ditto, and in Russia ditto. I dunno what more one wants for inclusion, short of being a best-seller. In any case, he also undeleted my novel Blood on the Hibiscus and short articles about two series characters, Commissaire Tama and Joe Caneili. Also a mention in the Bangor, Maine, article about famous Bangorians -- geez, aside from Stephen King, Hannibal Hamblin, Bill Cohen, my uncle, and me, who the hell is from Bangor? And finally a comment by me in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress article (Heinlein's book), in which Heinlein said it was his best book. This annoys me: when I first wrote the comment someone deleted it on the grounds that there was no verification. Then when I put my own name in in order to provide verification this character deletes it on the grounds that it's a vanity plug for me -- it was a bit of info about Heinlein, nothing more. If anyone else in WP knew Heinlein and wants to put in a direct comment from him, let them do so.... In any case, thanks for the interest and all the best, Hayford Peirce 16:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. You don't have that RfC still filed against you, do you? What about the naming conventions? Did that just stall and everyone forgot about it? I still want it switched back. Mike H 03:46, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
Just to say that I think it's great the effort you have been putting into the TV (or is that television :) naming conventions. Hopefully it'll work out this time!
Things can be a bit like hitting your head off a brick wall sometimes. I've my own problem that in the past 24 hours, there's been 4 different formats used for Irish city articles!!! I doubt it will be speedily rectified!
While I'll be the first to agree that he's a problem user, you probably shouldn't be the one to block him, as you're involved in the dispute. I'll make clear to him that he's not to revert the page again, and if he does it, I'll block him. Snowspinner 18:17, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
This is the part where I am not a help. I feel it's too confusing (so many parts and subparts), but I haven't the first clue as to how to make it better. I don't want to fuck it up. I think it'll do, if you just explain it all to me. Mike H 18:46, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
I hate to be rude, however, I do have numerous real life things that take up much of my time. I can't be on the computer every waking moment, and even if I am on, I may not remember things like the television naming poll. Mike H 22:18, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
I am. It's just real life takes top priority. Mike H 23:08, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
[Courtesy copy from my Talk page. -- orthogonal 22:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)]
Hi. when you cast your disapproval, the page had been re-vamped once more by Netoholic. Please re-visit the page. Your disapproval didn't offer any alternative as requested. Mintguy(T) 22:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know this; you didn't necessarily have to, and it speaks well of you that you did even though you know my disapproval is a criticism of you. But perhaps I'll wait for the edit war to end, so I don't have to replace it multiple times.
Any chance you can just cede that page to Netoholic? If his proposal is so obviously contrary to consensus, it'll be voted down, and meanwhile you can open your own poll somewhere else. It seems scary to declare polls invalid, because that has the potential to undermine any consensus-seeking by voting. -- orthogonal
Adding more options to the poll at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) won't solve my "issue" (too big a word) with it. My reason for liking User:Gtrmp/TV draft poll is that it separates TV/television and the questions of program/programme/show/series/whatever. To cover all of the posibilities with the structure of your poll suggestion we'd have to list all permutations of {television,TV,nothing}+{program,programme,series,show,whatever,nothing} which is no good. The "flat" version has the advantage of being simpler of course. – Foolip 23:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You might note that Netoholic was recently renaming all of the craters of the Moon articles from x crater to x (crater). Again seemingly with no consensus, just something he decided to do. When I asked him where the discussion on this name change was, he deleted my question without comment. RickK 23:26, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, please don't interpret my not replying to your last response as an indication that you are bothering me. Wikipedia is about dialogue and consensus, and it's not a bother -- I didn't reply simply because there seemed little I could say to your response. I understand that you were opposing Netoholic's unilaterally and I strongly agree with you tat unilateralism undermines Wikipedia; I just wish you'd managed to find a way to do that without yourself being unilateral. But perhaps such a course was impossible in this case. -- orthogonal 01:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Republicans and Democrats on the Georgia moving poll[edit]
Why do I use these names?? The answer is that the 2 options are very much like voting for a Republican and voting for a Democrat in a Presidential election. What other names could I have picked?? 66.32.251.60 22:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you might call it humourless to say this but, but I don't see any comparison to the election of a president in a foreign country and a poll about what we should do about Georgia. What would it mean if I had used the labels Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael? However, I do not like to be associated with a political movment that backs Dubya, or Reagan or Nixon for that matter. Why not cats and dogs, or cavaliers and roundheads, blues and greens, something, anything, less loaded? Mintguy(T) 23:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How are those names more logical?? 66.245.125.240 00:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
They are no more or less logical, but less politically loaded, with the possible exception of cavaliers and roundhead, which one could argue was MORE loaded, but just about as relevant. Why don't you get an account? Mintguy(T) 00:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry to tell you this, but my IP address just keeps changing. The following statement, but not its converse, is true:
If I'm the one who edits, the IP address has 4 numbers, the first of which is 66, and the second is either 32 or 245.
Why does my IP keep changning just about every time I get off the Internet and back on?? 66.245.125.240 23:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Because your ISP are provinding you with a dynamic IP address (as most do). When you log off that IP address becomes available to the next person in the queue. When you log back on you get the next one off the top of the stack. Why don't you just get an account? Mintguy(T) 23:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mintguy, perhaps you are new to wikipedia, I don't know. But it's generally accepted practice not to edit others' user pages. If you wish to duckspeak Snowspinner's comment, please feel free to do so on your own User page, not mine. Thanks! -- orthogonal 00:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
PS: If you mean to indicate agreement with someone's comment, it's standard to write "hear, hear!" Writing "Here, here!" should be reserved for indicating your location, as when you are lost and trying to attract the attention of rescuers. -- orthogonal 00:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
At some point in the past you expressed an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). I have instigated a new poll on that page. I am hoping that this poll will properly allow all users who have an interest in the subject to express their views fairly before we come to a consensus. I have scrapped the poll that was previously in place on that page because I believe that it was part of an unfair procedure that was going against the majority view. I am appealing to all users who contribute to that page to approve my actions. I would appreciate it if you could take the time and trouble to read the page carefully and express an opinion and vote as you see fit. Mintguy(T) 16:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page has a long and tortuous history, but the short version is that Netoholic (who has gained something of a reputation for acting without the agreement of other users, and now has an RFC against him for that very reason) started moving pages before there was a general agreement, several users complained about this but Netoholic took no notice. I suggested that we hold a new poll to establish a true consensus. I suggested to User:Gtrmp that he prepare such a poll. While he was doing this, Netoholic once more acted without the consent of the majority and instituted his own poll which was configured to either endorse or reject his unilateral movement of pages, and did not offer users the chance to make other suggestions. This poll was defeated by a clear majority, but Netoholic took the decision to extend the deadline. At this point I created the poll that you now see on that page. The poll is open, and is open to further embellishment should you wish to extend the list of options. I have not set a close date as I believe I have already imposed myself too much on the process. I am therefore a little disappointed to see your name in the disapprove section. However as I've just indicated, I do not intend to impose myself too much on that page other than to stem Netoholic and his inability to treat other users with respect. So I invite you to discuss the matter of additional options, and the deadline for the poll on that page. BTW I should point out that I originally prepared a poll in a similar format to that on user:Gtrmp's page, but several users complained that it was overly complicated, so I simplified it to what you see now. Mintguy(T) 21:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi Mintguy. I'm sorry if I've done something inappropriate. I probably just misunderstood the situation. I thought that part of the proposal for a new poll, was to achieve consensus on the wording of the new poll before voting started (the idea of making changes to the poll after voting has started seems strange to me). I thought that that was why there was an approve/disapprove section. Since It seemed to me that the poll on User:Gtrmp's page was better, I expressed an opinion to use it instead. You did actively seek out my opinion, and I gave it. Again if I've done something I shouldn't have then I apologize. Paul August 03:59, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
I did not simply just change the image. Please verify other changes were not made before reverting some else's changes. RedWolf 03:04, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
