User talk:Jguk/Archive11

Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12

Username change

Your request has been fulfilled; the old edits are now attributed to User:Jguk 2. Regards — Dan | talk 20:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I really would like to know

Do you honestly think that it is not reasonable to ask a candidate for ArbCom if he is paid to participate in Wikipedia? Why not? Marsden 17:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

4 day block

I have blocked you for 4 days for violating the terms of the Arbcom ban forbidding you from changing BCE->BC or CE->AD. Regards, Nandesuka 22:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough - a clear violation of Wikipedia:Remember we prefer trolls over substantive contributors of content:) . In future I'll reflect and remember how much poorer a place Wikipedia would be without the contributions of Sortan jguk 23:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess you don't read your talk page, either. Look, the quality of your edits really isn't at issue. What's at issue is your unwillingness to comply with a really simple restriction. Maybe the guy who busted you in this matter is a really terrible, horrible, awful, no-good, bad person. Stranger things have happened. But you have an Arbcom decision against you, you've been warned not to violate it, and you've been blocked for violating it before. This is nobody's fault but your own. Cut it out. Nandesuka 23:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Dan100 reduced your block to 1 day. That's fine with me. But the next time you violate your arbcom ban, it will be much longer. Consider this fair warning. You're a very good editor. Please don't get pulled down by such a stupid, stupid issue. Nandesuka 00:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming featured list candidates in the edit summaries

(Copied from Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Naming candidates in the edit summaries on 7 Nov 2005.)
Hi! I visit the featured lists and featured list candidates once in a while. In the meantime, it would be great if actual list names were mentioned in the edit summaries of the FL and FLC during nominations and promotions, in addition to "promote one more" etc. Could this be arranged? --Eddi (Talk) 14:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC) (post at project talk) / --Eddi (Talk) 01:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC) (repost at user talk)

I think it is very helpful when list names are mentioned in the edit summaries of the FL and FLC during nominations, promotions and failures, in addition to "promote one more" etc. The history of the two ([1] [2]) shows that you are the most active contributor but almost the only one who doesn't mention list names in edit summaries. Could you please reconsider your practice? --Eddi (Talk) 22:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, good idea. I'll do that in the future, jguk 23:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

FLC

My home computer (800x600 res) is currently disconnected and so I can't follow up on the resolution issue for another few days. I trust that this has been done, and so will withdraw my oppose vote. Nichalp 15.219.201.70 04:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi im reasonably new to Wikipedia and I was wondering if you could help me with something. I moved the Ian Bell page to Ian Bell (disambiguation). Then i got stuck... i wanted to move the Ian Bell (cricketer) page to Ian Bell, and then on Ian Bell's page(that is the cricketers page) link to other people named Ian Bell(that is disambiguation page). The reason being is that Ian Bell the cricketer is much more highly regarded and respected and well liked than Ian Bell the computer programmer who made some game Elite (computer game). Thankyou, Your help is much appreciated. Sahafan

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

Hey, I'm wondering if I can draw your attention to the comments I've made. Is there anything else you recommend doing? Talrias (t | e | c) 21:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom straw poll

It's not clear your comment and question here are support for this proposal, but as listed, seem to be being counted as such. You might wish to clarify, one way or the other. Alai 03:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

MFD

Your article Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org has been nominated as miscellany for deletion. Firebug 12:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

References

Stop mass-removing references to religioustolerance.org. Your actions here border on vandalism. Firebug 12:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove references because you don't like them - discuss your changes on the talk pages, you been here long enough to know that. Izehar (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org is a reputable and reliable source. You have provided no reason to believe that it is not, just ad hominem attacks upon its authors. Firebug 12:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As noted on Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org, the religioustolerance.org website is really no more or no better a resource than my mates' blogs. We really shouldn't be using it to justify anything in the encyclopaedia. The new Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org page allows a centralised place for any discussions about this, and is important on that. I don't consider it unreasonable to include a reference to a centralised discussion on the issue rather than talk the issue to three dozen different talk pages. Indeed, I think it's better this way.

• No, you made that page to falsely imply that your removal of the links was policy. Firebug 13:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It is imperative if this encyclopaedia is to improve that we require information to be sourced, and to require those sources to be reputable and reliable, jguk 12:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• It is reputable and reliable. You have given no reason to believe otherwise, just ad hominems and POV. You have criticized what you say is shoddy writing and research, but given no evidence nor examples to back it up. You keep going back to a lack of academic credentials, as if that were a prerequisite to intelligent commentary on issues relating to tolerance. Firebug 13:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Religious tolerance is a biased, one sided source and cannot be used as a reference. Check e.g the information they have about Rajneesh, omitting the poisoning of food with Salmonella. But external links to the site are okay. Andries 13:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring

You have things backward. It was your responsibility to get consensus before doing these mass removals, not mine to clean up after your droppings. Firebug 13:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted you yet again, jguk - PLEASE get consensus to remove them as a reference. Edit-warring will not get you anywhere. We are having a discussion on the page you pointed out, please join. Izehar (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you explain Template:Policylist further?

You said on the TfD for this template: "Conveys a serious link between important WP policies and guidelines". I don't really see this - what link are you talking about, and how is it explained. And why should it be in a template, rather than a page of it's own (like 5 Pillars, Short ruleset, etc.)? I look forward to your response. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan/Workshop. Fred Bauder 19:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Jguk, you've been involved in this BC business for a while, I see. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts you have on the various pitfalls associated with trying to build consensus on the matter. It's all there, in the backlog, but I haven't found it all yet, much less read it all. I appreciate your input. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK

Thanks, I signed myself up over on Meta :) had no idea hehe. :D

Thanks again! --Mistress Selina Kyle 22:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Eras discussion.

Hi. A personal request for you. In deciding which of the variations you support and oppose, I would greatly appreciate it if you simply placed your name instead of your name and comments on the main Wikipedia:Eras project page. Having to edit the page, reading it, and viewing the proposal as a whole, not to mention parsing it, will get rather annoying if everyone leaves text-bites next to their names there, and the practice itself gives me an impression of POV-pushing, in the sense of trying to persuade people to a POV on that page when they should be considering the variations in and of themselves, without partisan biases (which is where the Talk page is useful, of course). Thank you. P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add to Pádraic's request my own plea for you to bring your opinion to the talk page. I've replied to some of your points there, and I'm very interested in what you think. The project page is a very bad forum for actual discussion, and I hope to see you on the talk page soon. I really think we can come to an agreement if we discuss and listen to one another. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Is this how I can corner you into a discussion? This would make more sense at Wikipedia talk:Eras. You commented at WP:AN/I:

It was also inappropriate to make reference to NPOV/POV on one of the many proposal on the Wikipedia:Eras page. None of the many other proposals had any reasoning in their short statement form, why should one proposal stand out as having this (very decisive) reasoning?

Actually, one of the other proposals did have a reason, namely the the one for BC/AD. It said, "as the most common standard". I thought you were right to object, though, and I removed the reasoning from both. Would you please let me know what you think of these replies to your arguments about Wikipedia:Ownership? Thanks! -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

Hi. Please review & respond to User:Jguk_at_Wikipedia:Eras. Thanks. Regards, El_C 01:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Promoted featured list

Hi there. I was a bit curious about your decision to promote the List of London Underground stations as a featured list. At the time that you promoted it, it had at least a couple of actionable objections (mine and that of User:Susvolans), which nobody had even attempted to disagree with, let alone actually act upon. I don't want to make a big fuss about this - I realise that it was a little while ago, and I'm sure you acted in good faith. Just minorly perturbed, that's all. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to reply so fully. I'm still not sure that I agree about the decision. My understanding has always been that FLC, similarly to FAC, requires unanimity - any one actionable objection is enough to stop a list from being featured. At the very least, I'd have expected to be asked whether I felt that my objections had been addressed. All that having been said, however, there are many more important things to worry about, so I'm happy to leave this issue here. And I should add a word of thanks for the hard and thankless work you put into maintaining WP:FLC. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Cricket

Congratulations on this being the inaugural featured portal. I know other have helped but I'm fairly sure that you've been the driving force, so well done. -- Ian ≡ talk 12:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oh My Goddess episodes

Citation? YOU ASK FOR CITATION?. OK :) I added the section you requested. Should be enough :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No need to shout at me, I'm on your side. I'm sure it's not long before your list becomes featured (indeed, I hope to be the one that actually promotes it, unless ALoan jumps in first:) ). I'm glad you've already got there with your references - though I'll stick to my 4 day allowance in case there are any further references that strike you as apposite, and to allow for further comments as to whether the list is now adequately referenced, or for other comments. On the face of it, though, it's currently looking that your Christmas Day will include a present of promotion of your list to featured list status. Good luck, jguk 22:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No I wasnt shouting... Sorry sorry sorry, I am merely excited. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Just remember, you shouldn't open your presents before the 25th:) jguk 22:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I was about to ask you to withdraw your objections to this and Prime Ministers so I could promote them, but I'll leave you to do it on Christmas Day -- ALoan (Talk) 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Poke* *Poke* *Poke*... :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

RE:Singapore gay equality movement

Hello there. I noticed that you added a {{copyvio}} tag to the above article. However, Groyn88 came and removed your copyvio tag and added a whole bunch of material. Apparently two editors have been involved in a content dispute. Now the other user, Akikonomu, is complaining that "the result [of the arbitration] is everything has been restored to Groyn88's old versions". I haven't seen much arbitration on the talkpage of that article, so perhaps you'd like to share some thoughts on it? Thanks. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hiya, Not sure if this is the right place or not, but just wanted to say thanks for the message! I realised laste last night that a couple of the articles I wrote had been duplicated, but was too tired to alter them then! I'll look into merging them later today. MAny thanks for the welcome anyway. rob77,

Merry Christmas!

I thought you'd be interested in this recent edit of mine [3]. All the best, and well done for getting it there, jguk 09:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you ^-^'. I wish I could offer something in return. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Charles Wright (cricketer), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Featured portal candidates

Hi jguk. Did you still have standing objections against the candidacies of Portal:London and Portal:Constructed languages? If not, I'd like to promote them. I still have an objection against Portal:Trains, and Portal:Politics may soon be removed. --cj | talk 15:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

FLC Mexican billionaires

I'd wait a couple days to see the response, if you don't mind. Maybe the fact that is in FLC may get people interested in participating in the discussion. If after that I'd agree to delisting (say by the 1st of Jan). I will probably be around to delist it myself. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's ok, I'm happy to leave that up to you, although, as I'm sure you appreciate, it can't get promoted until the copyright issue is resolved, jguk 18:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy birthday Jon!!! I'm the first to wish ya! Also wish your 12[?] IRC avatars from my side :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Singapore gay equality movement

Happy New Year! Okay, what our friend User:Groyn88 has done is copy almost all the text of Singapore_gay_equality_movement to PLU3. You tagged the former article as a copyvio, should you also tag PLU3 article as copyvio as well? Also, should the talk pages for both articles be linked since the discussions are identical? Akikonomu 09:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Cricket updates

Doh! I look at the changes since my last update, and incorporate them. I mistook a recent edit of mine as the last update edit, and hence lost some changes. Will fix. --Paul 17:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)--Paul 05:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've been doing all of them. I let my ODI stats lapse, I might (a big might) get around to making them current again, so I could do the ODI records too. I'll also get around to updating the infoboxes on a regular basis, I've been adding them to older players first. --Paul 18:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The only references in the player pages I'm using is the CricInfo page given in the Source of the infobox. Also I'm skimping a bit on the categories and other non-stats material - the less time I spend on manually editing things, the more boxes I can get done before I get sick of it. --Paul 16:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, England is next. Not too many red links, I see, which speeds things up. --Paul 05:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the bat :) Started on England, happily lots of them are done already. --Paul 05:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

List of English words containing a Q not followed by a U

Both your reservations on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of English words containing Q not followed by U/archive1 have now been attended to. Thanks for the constructive criticism. Soo 20:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you supporting the nomination now? It's not clear, but I'd be very grateful if you did! Soo 20:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Feature portal candidates

Thanks for that. I'll see what progress has been made with regards to colour on Portal:Trains. As an aside, I plan on creating a Portal of the Week section at the top of the right sidebar on Portal:Browse. This would rotate between existing portals, with Cricket first on the list.--cj | talk 12:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

English cricketers

jguk said: Bobo192, thanks for all your new articles on English cricketers. I notice, however, that you have added them all to the English ODI cricketers category. This category should only be used for players who have competed in at least one one-day international for England:) All the best.

Argh. I misinterpreted the name of the category. Sorry. I thought it meant those who were eligible in a particular category, as per Category:English footballers or similar. My bad. I'll remind myself not to put them in from now on, and I'll find as many as possible to take back to normal. Sorry. Bobo192. 15:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

jguk said: Ah, you're confusing it with Category:English cricketers!

So long as this is the only category by which these others should be categorized, that'll be cool with me. I'll see if I can get it right soon enough. Thanks for catching them all. Bobo192. 16:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year!!!

Hi Jon, Wish you an exciting, fun, prosperous and safe New Year 2005!! =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Cricket images

Per the comments on the current FAC, I have made an image for you to have a look at. Image:England 1st innings at Edgbaston.svg I can make any such images if you want, so feel free to ask! Cheers, and happy new year! [[Sam Korn]] 15:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sub-stubs

Hello jguk,

It looks like you have a lower threshold for promoting those cricket bio sub-stubs from the talk page to the article page than I have. I'm not trying to defend mine — I'm finding it very difficult to judge what it worthy of moving and what should really be deleted. I'd be interested to hear your views. Would you promote anything, however bad (e.g., this one), or do you have a lower bound?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: Like you, I'm perplexed as to why someone would want to add all these substubs without creating an account and signing up for WP:Cricket.

I've wondered about this too. My only guess is that he doesn't want to make it any easier to track down his vandalism. He is the same guy who adds [[Category:Vegans]] to random people, and vandalises Darryl Strawberry. But he also adds categories to cricketers, so a lot of his edits are useful. A thoroughly perplexing character. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

He vandalises lots of pages regularly. It's frustrating if he is adding useful info to cricket stuff, but most of what he does is a deliberate, malicious annoyance and I don't like the idea of encouraging him by promoting his articles -- especially if he's the only source for them. Most of the stuff he does is absurdly trivial anyway; tiny stubs on non-notable cricketers. Ben-w 23:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still somewhat in two minds about this, but I tend to agree with Ben-w. I think that helpfully moving the articles for him is actually making the problem worse. The number of articles per day is increasing, and they all need serious copy editing, so it's becoming quite a chore. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the problem - and also that as he is on dial-up, there's little we can do about it. There are two approaches, as I see it. (1) Hope he gets bored and goes away; (2) Try to encourage him on board as a good editor (he clearly has a genuine interest in cricket and probably The Bill, if only we could harness that and lose the vandalism bit) and/or hope he gets bored and goes away. Personally I prefer (2). Where he does make useful edits, I see no harm in keeping them - indeed, let's at least get the benefit of the good he does. If Stephen wishes to give up monitoring Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/List of cricketer talk pages, that's fine - I'll look after that myself. At the rate Paul's going, he will run out of international cricketers soon! jguk 18:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a tricky issue, and I still go from one opinion to the other. I think if they were just sub-stubs, I would be inclined to move them all. The problem is that they also manage to be ungrammatical and badly formatted, and I don't like to move them without fixing them. But if you still see value in them and want to move them, I'll leave them alone. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

C.B. Fry

Once again, I'm going to have to revert. C.B. Fry wouldn't have used the word "soccer". I shall put Association Football instead (to please us both). (Comment moved from talk page by [[Sam Korn]], comment by Boothman (talk • contribs))

Cricket image

Hi Jon. I have just made an image for off break - I was wondering if there would be any changes you'd make before I create some more. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 21:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

Hi Jon, thanks, it's been a few days or longer since I last looked at it, so I'll look in again soon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article List of West Indian women's ODI cricketers, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Pl. indicate suggestions from articles started by you as self-noms, it reduces our workload ;) --Gurubrahma 05:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply re: anonymous cricket talk page creator

I've answered your question in the Village pump. Seen him doing the same stuff and some minor vandalism, so my recommendation is to speedy delete those pages. KittenKlub 11:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Vblock

Your edits to Template:Vblock are counterproductive, and show lack of understanding of process and policy. I would kindly ask you that if you are not taking part in fighting vandalism, at least do not interfere with those who are. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I echo that comment. The line is needed so that other editors are aware of the past behaviour of a user. Recently for example a user received 5 final warnings in the one night. Each one of the users who imposed it were unaware that the user had received others because every time one was placed, the user blanked it. When a high level of vandalism is going on users often don't have the time to check edit summaries and individual edits to see what information had previously been put on pages. If you were dealing with vandalism, Jg, you'd know from experience how important it is that these warnings remain in place. Please take into account the practical experience of those who do spent much of their time dealing with vandalism. In our experience that line is vital. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It is a long-standing policy that a user may do what they want with their own userspace (subject to using it for personal attacks/advertising), and ArbCom has confirmed this policy in a number of cases. Trying to force a message to stay in a user's userspace despite that user clearly demonstrating that they don't want it there is considered disruptive and abusive. This policy is so long-standing that it is inappropriate to seek to over-ride it via a discussion on one proposed template's talk page.

Combatting vandalism is important - but that does not mean we should take measures that interfere with the normal operation of Wikipedia to do so. If someone's vandalising - block them. Put a message on their talk page and leave a clear edit summary for all to see.

My take on this is the opposite. I have seen too many very inexperienced admins come in and over-react to situations - labelling people as vandals who are not, misunderstanding fundamental policies, and all sorts of other mistakes. I really don't see it as appropriate to give those admins so powerful a hand that they can insist that their musings remain evermore on a user's talkpage.

Also, many, many people remove warnings of various sorts from their talkpages on a daily basis. Insisting on keeping those warnings on talkpages, when it has happened, has only exacerbated and increased the dispute. It would be foolish to go down the route of suggesting that anyone who removes a warning from their userpage should be blocked. I oppose the idea wholeheartedly, jguk 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A "long-standing policy"? Which policy is that exactly? Here is the relevant excerpt from Wikipedia:Vandalism, which you should really try reading sometime:

Talk page vandalism

Deleting other user's comment or deleting the whole section of talk page. Exceptions are deleting the section to put it to archive and removing a personal attacks.

If you think this policy is wrong, feel free to propose changing it. Until then, however, don't lecture me about "long standing policy". As long as the current policy is in place, vandals who repeatedly blank their talk page after each warning they get will continue to be blocked, whether you like it or not. I think it's only fair to warn them of this consequence, but you seem to prefer surprising them (or else you just don't care, since you're not involved in fighting vandalism anyway). I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by tampering with this template. If you are interested in protecting some imaginary rights of anonymous vandals, you wouldn't find many supporters around here. Owen× ☎ 23:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider blocking User:Jimbo Wales for repeated vandalism. He's removed others' comments from his userpage for as long as I remember:) There are many other good users who do the same. They are not vandals. I have no idea where that bit of Wikipedia:Vandalism came from, but that does not meet most people's definitions. For example, under point 18 above, User:Ianbrown is congratulating me on helping Portal:Cricket become the first featured portal. If I deleted that comment without archiving it, I really would not expect to be accused of vandalism and blocked! jguk 23:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Jimbo never deleted anything from his talk page; it was all carefully archived here. Apprently you aren't familiar with the concept of archiving, either. No one will hunt you down for removing someone's conragtulations from your talk page, but if you remove a warning issued to you by an admin, this will—rightfully—be considered vandalism. Owen× ☎ 23:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. I have no idea where this has come from - and it is entirely contrary to the practices I have seen throughout my time. I must say I hadn't seen that Jimbo had kept some archived stuff in December, in the past he's always deleted it, and it looks like that archiving was done by Adam Carr, not Jimbo. A fair number of other long-standing users delete stuff at whim, and I have always deleted the odd comment I haven't liked from my user talk page and I'll continue to do so, jguk 23:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That section was inserted into Wikipedia:Vandalism only a couple of days ago, without adequate discussion. I've changed it to indicate that only alterations to article Talk pages are considered vandalism; removing comments from one's own user Talk page is not. There has never been any consensus for the latter policy, and, as I have pointed out on Wikipedia talk:Vandalism, several administrators and arbitrators have policies indicating the opposite posted on their own user Talk pages. If you want to make a special policy that it is vandalism to remove administrator warnings, then that can be discussed, but it should not be implemented without first attempting to achieve consensus. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Talk pages, "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil". However, doing so in the midst of a vandalism spree has only one purpose: disruption. If you prefer, we can change that last sentence to take away to the word "vandalism", and warn that blanking the page would lead to being blocked from editing it (most admins use semi-protection). I don't think the average vandal cares one way or another, but I'd be happy to find a practical compromise. Owen× ☎ 15:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Hinakana

He's my cousin. I don't think he'll contribute that much, he takes his education a bit more seriously than I do - but it's certainly good to have him around. Sam Vimes 10:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian

I have written to Gibraltar Nynex Communications Ltd hopefully they will help us track him down. We have come very close to blocking that isp and the Spanish Wikipedia has. We have another editor from Gibraltar who also edits so that is a very poor solution. 212.120.227.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) only made two edits with that particular ip and as it a variable ip anyway I did not block it. Fred Bauder 14:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

m:Wikimedia UK

I noticed that you have not yet commented on the mailing list or Meta page about whether you want to come to the next meeting, and if so when you would be able to make it. There is a signup sheet at m:Wikimedia UK#Next meeting which it would be great if you could add your signature to sooner rather than later so we can get things moving. Thryduulf 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Check User, etc

I don't consider Kelly to have any credibility. I'll make a decision based on serious reasoning. Everyking 22:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Cricketer project

I like the idea behind your filling out the cricketers without pages. Anything I can do to help, let me know.

--Deville 23:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Signed up, thanks! --Deville 23:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, went ahead and saw that we needed an article on Sonny Ramadhin, so now we have one. I'm letting you know because I was hoping you could take a look at it when you get a chance, and let me know if this is of a consistent style (since you've made so many of these things). I'll probably make a few more soon, and I'd love any pointers you might have. --Deville 17:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

More on lists

Can you take a look at Talk:Charismatic_authority#Lists_of_people_in_article ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Cricket featured article/December

Hi, I ran into this article clicking for a random page. It obviously does not belong to the article namespace. Please move it (under criket portal, I guess) and delete the redirect (per WP:RfD). Thanks! Renata 20:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

See Portal:Cricket/Featured article. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ramadhin and Windies

Thanks for your kind words about the Ramadhin article. I'll probably take you up on the offer of doing some work on the Windies pages when I get a chance... also, I'll make some more stubs for Windies players, as there are quite a few red links on List of West Indian Test cricketers, esp. in comparison to Eng or Aus. --Deville 01:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:V

Jon, I'm really sorry I've taken so long to get back to you about your WP:V draft. I've not been editing much, and when I have, I've been distracted. I've not had a chance to look at the draft yet, and may not be able to tomorrow (though I'll try). If you have to go "live" without me (perhaps you have already!), I'll have to live with it. I trust you anyway, because you care about using good sources, so I don't think we'll have many points of disagreement between us, except that I tend to be wordy, and you don't. ;-) Thank you for putting so much work into it, and I'm sorry I've not been more attentive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Vegan Vandal

No, sorry, I'm not going to look up Wisden and cross-reference cricinfo. I will treat any edits by this known, habitual, long-term vandal as vandalism. Ben-w 10:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

You have a new front page to screenshot :-0! JHMM13 (T | C) 01:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Touched by your support

I think my RfA will still go down as slightly below the normal threshold, though it will be up to the bureaucrat closing it to weigh the experience of various voter, and the reasons stated.

But in any event, I have gained a lot of respect for you in your willingness to put our past disagreements behind you. I must confess that the moment I typed "accept" a week ago, I had a rough mental list of who I thought my oppose votes would be (i.e. who held a grudge or a POV-agenda; mostly my thougts were born out). And frankly, I put you in my mental "oppose" category. I'm glad you feel that's all behind us... moreover, I have really valued your recent work on some of the WP:V and WP:NOR standards for lists (both the proposed guideline, and on the GLB lists as "first post-guideline cleanup attempt").

Be well. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Deus Caritas Est

BBC cannot count - "The encyclical has been published in seven key languages, including Latin." [4] - but my fault for not checking :) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect they meant "and" rather than "including", unless they are saying that, say, Portuguese is not a "key" language. I am amazed that the few edits so far have all been improvements rather than the slew of vandalism I was expecting. We will see what happens when the US wakes up properly... -- ALoan (Talk) 13:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from Lulu

You already noticed, of course... and made some nice comments on my talk page. But I figure a thank you card for everyone is a nice thing to send. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

I chimed in on both WP:NPOV related move requests you made. I figured I'd let you know.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:FLC

I was just doing that! -- ALoan (Talk) 10:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Mazhar Hussain, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Standardization of Featured content interface

(Cross posted to User talk:Solipsist, User talk:Jguk, and User talk:Cyberjunkie)

Hi Solipsist, Jguk, and Cyberjunkie. You are the go-to guys for the featured pictures, lists, and portals, respectively, so I'm crossposting this to each of your talk pages. I recently finished revamping the interface for the featured articles - see wikipedia:featured articles. All featured article-related pages now have a standard interface pane at the top-right (and most have the left pane as well), linking to all the other featured content, and all the relavant related pages directly underneath. Up until now, the featured content has (1) not been well integrated, and (2) has had a very balkanized interface. This changes that. So, starting very soon, I want to start converting all the other featured content pages to use this interface as well. Please discuss at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Standardization_of_Featured_content_interface Raul654 09:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

WP Jargon (and other topics)

Hi Jguk,

I saw your renaming of the wikipedia:NPOV tutorial - has there been a WP:RM about this (I certainly consider this a controversial move)?

I also saw your changes in the text of that guideline. I certainly support WP:WOTTA (humor guideline, indicating we shouldn't use too many acronyms). Nonetheless Neutral point of view does not equal Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the last one being a bit of a stretch of the usual understanding of neutral point of view which is in many cases used as a synonym of objective. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view *expressly* states that wikipedia does not want to be caught in the objectivity trap. So Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy uses a *very specific* meaning of the neutral point of view concept, and that link should always be clear.

In fact, the last time I spoke Jimbo Wales irl (about a year ago) I talked to him about this point. I said I'd like wikipedia to use the *same concepts* in *the same meaning as outside wikipedia* all throughout the "wikipedia:" project namespace, but that for wikipedia's Neutral Point of View concept I don't see a possibility to avoid an exception. NPOV is too specific for the whole philosophy of how we're building this encyclopedia, and also, too fundamental as one of its foundations. Really too much of a stretch if you're new here, in fact the only thing one really should know when starting to work here, that wikipedia distinguishes between "Neutral Point of View" and "objectivity". This makes (N)POV sort of unavoidable jargon in wikipedia, as far as I can assess.

So if you don't mind I'd revert all your changes (and the page move) re. the NPOV tutorial. And if you want these changes, please use (at least) the NPOV tutorial talk page, or try to find consenus in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and/or other usual channels for finding an as broad as possible consensus.

I write this here on your talk page first mainly for two reasons:

• I've seen you revert-warring on the verifiability policy page lately, not a nice spectacle, so please, I'm asking you, I'd like to see a bit less of that mode of operation of yours.
• I'd really like your assistance in some difficult cases in the policy/guideline department, where I think that basicly we agree on the best way forward. I mean, for instance, Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia, where I'm much more supportive of your alternative proposal, than of Jossi's original one. I wouldn't like to see such efforts going lost because of you getting lost in behaviour that would make any possible support crumble.

--Francis Schonken 15:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)