User talk:Iamlondon

Welcome!

Hello, Iamlondon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! AnnH ♫ 21:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's religious beliefs

I see you've been sucked in to this whirlpool. I do contribute to the debate about this section of the article, but hardly to the article itself. You might familiarise yourself with User:Str1977 and User:Giovanni33 - they've been knocking lumps out of each other for months. And you might post a user page, so editors can have an idea of your own general views and edit history - it reduces their suspicions and makes them more willing to respond to you. My own view is that the section has been twisted in to a blame game, far beyond the facts. Unfortunately, a lot of it relies on the loopier acts in the Hitler/Nazi/Third Reich publishing circus, which are largely acceptable in WP. I would like to see the section reduced to its bare bones, and the substance transferred to a separate article - User:Str1977 asked me to submit my version, but I'm not well-read on Hitler or religion. Perhaps you could take it up with him? BTW: are you london, or a young sheep in london?--Shtove 15:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Catholic

I'm re-reverting Hasbro's edits to Irish Catholic. Looking at the history, I think the editor who reverted you probably did so because you didn't use an edit summary (although his assessment of you as an 'unregistered editor' confuses me, I admit.) Just wanted to let you know, and sorry about Hasbro's reaction. I'm not sure what his deal is. -- Vary | Talk 01:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I know - the very first thing the guy said to me was offensive. He's clearly a bipolar character of some type - just launches straight in with the abuse. I don't think he should be allowed to edit on this site at all. His very first words to me were to call me an Irish Nazi because I told him I was removing his weird references to random English Catholic gentry as being considered 'Irish Catholic'. I assure you, the last people to be called 'Irish Catholic' would be English Catholic aristocrats!Iamlondon 03:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFK and JFK articles

I would also appreciate your help in preventing our friend the Trojan warrior from butchering the JFK and RFK articles. Griot 18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited you to discuss the issues. You've declned- I'm guessing because you can't defend your actions. Achilles2006 20:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, 'Achilles' the truth is that you're already making yourself unpopular. You don't need anyone else's help in that. If I'm frank I treat you with a sort of policy of containment. I think you're here to rubbish articles / generally get on the wrong side of people and I have no idea where such motivation comes from. You claim to be a defendant for reason and balanced opinion, yet your actions seem to denote someone more given over to just getting in the way. I can't point to a single constructive contribution you've made anywhere on Wiki. Should that remain the case someone will eventually ask for you to banned from Wiki altogether. I don't care either way if that happens, but would prefer it didn't. Please consider your edits to articles before attempting them. It's not a competition, I've already given you plenty of ground, and you're now earning more individuals who question your right to edit articles. Thanks, Iamlondon 20:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Iam", this is the 3d time you've called for me to be banned. I'm not going to tell you the parts of the RFK (or other articles) I've written, because then you would be reverting those. Out of spite I assume. You should really get a grip, & learn to discuss things without getting so all out of sorts. Achilles2006 08:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP Misbehavior Warning

WP warning: No Personal Attacks Also; please start with reliable sources rather than myth Rjensen 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He said, making a personal attack (that you would prefer what he thinks myth to approved reliable sources). Some users are nicer than others. Don't feel alone as it regards dealing with the Jensen. Stick to process, and don't let him bait you. Point out his tactics on article talk pages and apply NPOV tags to sections to draw others to your dispute. If you need help, visit my talk page or email me, maybe I can help with consensus issues. BusterD 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei

London, I noticed your comments on the Escriva page, and they served as the final proof to me that the Opus Dei articles has systemic NPOV problems. Therefore, I have done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. Could you look it over and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvment and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? --Alecmconroy 08:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Just to be clear, do you think my rewrite is an improvement? If so, could you explicitly say so at the request for comment? If you don't, it might not be clear that you support the new article. I also wouldn't object if you would like to restore the rewrite which I note has been reverted again by the OD members.

Also, if we ever can get this rewrite to stay up for five minutes, I would greatly welcome your input on improving it. I actually know very little about OD and catholicism in general, and I'm sure the rewrite is far from perfect. I'd really like to see this one go all the way to FAC-- aside from the edit wars, I don't think it has far to go. --Alecmconroy 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please

Regarding this edit: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Rockpocket 05:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See your page - If wiki were more strict on vandalism by new users there would be far less lost tempers by people such as myself - valued contributors. Spending hours writing an article only to have it messed with by some moron deters more users from using Wiki than mere bad language by responsible editors. That much is patently obvious.Iamlondon 10:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, however, vandalism is the inevitable side effect of an open wiki system. If new users were not permitted to contribute, how would we ever get more editors and make the project grow? Unless there is a radical change in policy, its just something we have to tolerate and throwing insults around simply doesn't help. Semi-protection can be requested here. I don't know whether the article will qualify - It depends on the frequency of the vandalism - but you could always list it and see what happens. Rockpocket 17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kennedy Administration in African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968)

Bravo! A magnificent addition! Simesa 03:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! So pleased you liked it...am smiling broadly :o) (do I get a star?...ah go on!) Big thanks, Iamlondon 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horatio Nelson

A little late but just read your defense of why the word "Nelson" should get an automatic redirect to Admiral Nelson's page. I think Nelson should get the respect that he is due, and when I first saw the page during the summer, I saw at the top a very cheap drawing of Nelson that made him look lost...I couldn't tolerate that!

So, remembering a more formal painting I first saw years ago, I did a search for it, and...well, it's now in a place of honor at the top of Nelson's article.

Now if I can only see a few other "editors" to treat the pages they're working on with more respect! Carajou 21:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in response to Nelson

I am retired US Navy, so naturally my inclination is to sailors everywhere, and I've read enough about Nelson to proclaim the obvious fact that he single-handedly saved England at Trafalgar. There should be no excuse to tarnish his memory at all, even if it's a cheap picture on Wikipedia.

My next campaign for England is to convince your fine admiralty that they should get HMS Victory out of that drydock and put her in the water. Over here we have USS Constitution, built in 1797, winner of many battles, and still commissioned and still floating. At one point she was allowed to sail just a few years ago. I want to see the same thing done with Victory. To just let the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar go by without Victory doing some laps around Portsmouth harbor is just terrible. Carajou 03:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, when one does type in "Nelson" on Wikipedia, it's the admiral's name at the top of the list. Carajou 03:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Let me know what you think of this 1347 in Ireland; am I going into too much depth, wandering too much from other Year's in style? Fergananim 17:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Albert Victor

Here's something else that's a disgrace to the memory of a man: the allegation that Prince Albert Victor was Jack the Ripper. I don't believe it at all; never have. An edit to that effect is on his Wikipedia page. But what is needed is a copy of a document from the Court Circular files that illustrates his whereabouts during any of the murders, bacause there is still the rumor and belief going about that the Prince was the Ripper. If someone comes into Wikipedia and thinks of changing it to state that the Prince was the Ripper, I want that document staring him in the face. If you're in London, you think you can pull a copy of it? Carajou 16:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point I made though, was the Prince was accused of this heinous crime, and he's stuck with the accusation in some of the popular Ripper books, some films, and some bios. So someone's going to read something about him which states the "fact" that he was the Ripper (probably a Stephan Knight book). Which explains my desire to post a document from the Court Circular which states he was somewhere else that can't be refuted.

At the very least, such an accusation can and should be corrected here. Carajou 20:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish American

You left this message on my talk page. Can I first of all warn you to stop your personal attacks and to assume good faith. The section was removed by another user, and was reverted by someone else. As I indicated in my edit summary, I supported the removal on two grounds: I don't think it is notable, and secondly, it is not referenced even if it is notable. The article is about Irish Americans, and being an Irish American does not just mean being of Irish descent. Please review this. Logoistic 13:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the moral highground is a good one considering you've had enough complaints before.Iamlondon 19:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unnacceptable personal attack. You have already been warned by myself. Please address the issue at hand. Logoistic 01:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had its section reinstated and is now as it was for over a year - "unacceptable personal attack" oh please! Lay off the dramatics. My considering your 'edit' to be negative is what is generally known as "having an opinion". One expresses an opinion and then it is either refuted or the matter is dropped when two parties agree to disagree. What generally doesn't happen in life is that a person then cries foul and starts reporting people for having opinions. I don't know you from Adam and would rather it stayed that way - if you feel the need to have squabbles then find someone else to have them with - I'm not interested in ego wars. You're harrassing me now and I'm not amused by it.Iamlondon 20:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it is a personal attack, and it is unacceptable to call good faith edits vandalism. This was clearly a good faith edit, as a good rationale was left for it in the edit summary. I trust this was a momentary lapse, but if you're feeling frustrated it would be best to back off for a bit, rather than drive on till you incur sanctions. Tyrenius 02:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I appreciate your right to view it as such but two people differing on a matter is, to my mind, no big deal - this dude is now trying to conflagrate absolutely nothing. I'd appreciate you asking this person to stop coming back to my user page now...he's clearly trying to stir up a storm and I'm not interested - it's hard enough to keep track of my pages without having to get into some ridiculous row with some stranger because they feel the need to win arguments. If you're an admin I'd appreciate you asking this guy to stop talking to me.Iamlondon 20:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this is not about editorial difference. It is about CIVIL communication and not calling other editors vandals, which is seen as a personal attack. You are obviously and understandably very involved with the article, but you must also bear WP:OWN in mind. Thanks. Tyrenius 23:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Thanks for the input, Iamlondon 23:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might mention that an argument to change the article Irish American has been put on its talk page, so you will need to engage with this if you disagree with the proposal. Tyrenius 23:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

One more personal attack like this one, and I will propose that you be blocked, and I'm pretty sure you will be blocked if it came to it. Cool it down, and deal with content rather than the contributor. Logoistic 01:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The post referred to above is a blatant violation of WP:NPA. You have just received a warning and ignored it. You could easily be blocked right now. Out of respect for your contributions, I'm issuing a final warning instead. Do not insult other editors. If you do, you will be blocked. If you disagree with them, then use rational argument to make a point. I suggest you absent yourself voluntarily from wikipedia for the next 24 hours to get some perspective. Tyrenius 02:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke, but your point is taken. There isn't a single chance he would have come across that remark unless he were stalking me and my edits. Would you now please ask that 'editor' to stay away from me. Fair is fair.Iamlondon 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I accept your explanation and it can be read in that way, but when things get tense, it's probably best not to make those kind of jokes. They're bound to get misread. I think it's usual in this kind of situation that an editor will tend to want to know what's going on. After all, you were talking about him to another user. Editors are allowed to look at others' contributions, especially if they feel (whether rightly or wrongly) that there is something that needs addressing. If they then act with wikipedia's interests in mind and their conduct is according to that, they can't be reproached or restrained from doing so. It's only if their intervention is malicious and patently against wikipedia's interest that it can be called stalking and action taken. I do not see that Logoistic is acting in any way other than what he genuinely feels to be a sound cause. Wikipedia only functions through a meeting of disparate minds, which need to be reconciled. I can see you're something of a powerhouse who has done a lot of good work, but perhaps along with this goes a certain intolerance, so I would ask you to think about whether that is the case, and, if so, to temper it, so that other viewpoints can be given breathing space too. Tyrenius 03:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh

Just after finishing extensive revising of the above article. I aim to keep on at it over the coming weeks and submit it for peer review. Would very much appreciate your thoughts. Fergananim 19:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claddaghduff

Hey Dave, how's it going? No relation to Claddaghduff, my family originally came from Cornamona, in nearby Connemara. Born in Pittsburgh, PA, USA. What is your relation to Ireland?

-Shane (RiverHockey 20:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Scots, Attacotti and Deisi

Hi! I would like your opinion on the above short addition I made to Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland. Cheers. Fergananim 14:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFK

Hi Iamlondon, if you're interested in creating detailed lists of quotes, you can join up over at Wikiquote. Wikipedia articles only need a few quotes to complement biographical articles. It's also good form to leave an edit summary or talk page message if you undo another editors action which was accompanied by a talk page edit, as you can see from the talk page other editors have voiced concerns over the presentation of quotes in this article - there were just too many. Cheers, Deiz talk 05:05, 15 August 2007

Bill Clinton

You say that Bill Clinton took his Irish ancestry very seriously, and here in Ireland we feel grateful to him for all he did. But "Irish ancestry".... come now. Don't be taken in. He's only one sixty fourth Irish. Surely, even by American standards, that's pushing it a bit. Millbanks 13:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Iamlondon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]