User talk:Jooler/Archive 1

It is not "erroneous" to refer to this event as the British Open. It would be erroneous to assert that is the proper noun for the event. Nobody is doing that. All my British relations refer to the paper (for example) as the "Times of London" or the "London Times." That isn't wrong, because the geographic reference is appended to the proper name of the event, no different than if I referred to the British Prime Minister. It is not "erroneous" to call it the British Open.

It wouldn't be erroneous to refer to it as the US Masters if I was talking to a Briton and he was trying to differentiate it from the British Masters, and that was conventional in the UK. The audience is important. In USA, it is conventional to refer to it as the British Open. It is not erroneous to add a geographic reference, any more so than it would be erroneous to refer to the American President; his office is President of the United States but nobody would say it is erroneous to refer to him as such.

This is pedantry that accomplishes nothing other than obfuscation. Nothing is lost by adding in a geographic adjective that describes a proper noun. The Times article just says that it is sometimes referred to that (without using the pejorative and unncessary adverb "erroneously"). It is quite normal to put in parentheses the town that a newspaper belongs to if that isn't in the name: The (Toledo) Blade, for example. I don't see where The (British) Open Championship is objectively erroneous. It does not purport to be the official name of the event and it is conventional to refer to that event in that fashion, at least in USA.

I was not aware that there was a specific British spelling of 'defense'. I thought I was correcting a misspelling. It's not my fault you guys are stodgey and antiquated.

The link you posted was bad. I think you mean to post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English

Kajmal 22:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know how American spelling conventions split from British. I was teasing you. Another thing about "you people" I noticed is that you don't get humor (humour?) unless it's blatantly silly. (See, that was a joke too.) Kajmal 10:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, okay, I wasn't trying to "impose" anything. I only changed it from football to soccer because I thought that if it's on a page that tells what "football" means in different places, it's redundant to say "Football means Australian rules football". Calm down... Mourn 17:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because football (if you bothered to look at the page...) is about historical contexts and whatnot. You might want to check what you're talking about before you get all worked up. Mourn 20:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop imposing your bias on this article. --Leifern 00:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Let me explain something to you:[reply]

• Just what is most notable about homeopathy is a matter of interpretation, therefore opinion. It is plainly biased to say that the ultradilution aspect is "notable" at the expense of anything else.
• It is not a simple fact that homeopathy does not meet minimum scientific and medical standards. It is, in fact, a bald-faced lie and fraudulent statement. Homeopaths claim in fact that the efficacy and safety of homeopathy is an observable fact, and seek to prove this through their trials. You may say that these trials are unconvincing, and this is a common criticism, but anything else is an outright lie.

This is very elementary logic. --Leifern 00:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both you hand User:Leifern have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and violations of Wikipedia's 3 revert rule. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your right im sorry. (24.60.161.63 06:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

With your neutral vote would you anticipate that the vote would be discounted or should it be used to calculate the total votes and the consequent percentage majority and thus be registered as a half vote for for and a half vote against the move? Jooler 10:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of what usually happens in this situtation, I dunno. I'll see if I can find what happens in other votes. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the choice is up to you. Either give a half vote to each or remove the vote or plump for one or the other. Jooler 11:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look around, neutral votes are not counted towards the tally/percentage, so that's what I'd like to do thanks. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would, however, prefer my vote not to be stricken out - my opinion is still the same and still exists; do the same as with other votes on Wikipedia and just do not count it towards the total either way. I've never seen this half-point thing anywhere. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 15:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AlbinoMonkey, I've not come across half points before. Oldelpaso 16:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jooler, in the recent Talk:FIFA World Cup#Requested move, User:Rousseau made his first edit a vote in the process, which you subsequently edited out (which seems fair and reasonable to me, as there's the danger of sockpuppetry, while the user shouldn't suffer from bad faith). What I would like to know is, is there a consensus guideline that prohibits a user to vote as their first action, as a voting process on Talk:Hanover 96 has something similar. If you want, could you take a quick look at Talk:Hanover 96#User:Hargreavesfan? Poulsen 00:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's considered vandalism--Nn-user 19:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read it (well, selected bits anyway). I'd be interested in working on putting all the information onto the page, however, we'd meet an obstacle: There is no online source for election results between 1885 and 1950. I'd be happy to give it a go without that if you like. --New Progressive 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for doing all that research. H.B.W. Brand, elected in 1865 on your sandbox page was in fact Henry Brand, and he later became Speaker of the Commons. He was a Liberal.

I'm having some difficulty identifying the party of Henry Fitzroy (statesman). In the PDF that you uploaded to the Commons, it says referring to the 1874 general election on page 23:

"After 23 years of Conservative disaster and defeat," said the Sussex Express, in reporting this election, "the representation of Lewes was at this contest reversed."

Thus from 1852 to 74, there were no Conservative MPs, so he definitely wasn't one of them in that period. There is a reference in the 1859 election to him being a Liberal MP, but the 1841 return indicates that he was a Conservative running against Liberals.

I grew up in Surrey, though I spent a lot of my teen years sloshing around bits of West Sussex. I'm presently in my final year at Oxford University. Most of my work on Wikipedia has been based around the constituencies in those areas. New Progressive 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find anything else on Henry Fitzroy (statesman) on Google other than his angeltowns article and the fact that he was descended from the Tudor Duke of the same name. I do not possess a library card for my LA though I imagine I could find most of what I might want to look for through the University libraries. New Progressive 20:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you were active in the first vote for naming conventions of television program(mes). Well it has raised it's ugly head again and I would appreciate any comments you have to make about my new proposal for naming television shows. Please leave comments here. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm minded to oppose the deletion of this cat, but when I try to edit the discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Films_notable_for_historical_inaccuracy I can't locate the discussion in the edit box. Clearly, I'm doing summat wrong. Help, if you can. Please reply to my talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Folks_at_137 Thanks. Folks at 137 11:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've gone to the category, followed the link to the "for deletion" page, and given my two euro cents... is there anything more I can do? --Svartalf 19:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited your userpage as i moved the 'This user is a sceptic, even of this userbox' userbox to Skeptic, as it was already taken. C.B 04:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by taken is, when i put the code that was originally given for it, i got a blokes face instead of the emoticon i was expecting. So, i moved the emoticon. I am aware of the irony of the spelling and my userbox combo, but changing one letter seemed less offensive to the original writer of the userbox.C.B 16:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled his death date from Leigh Rayment's peerage pages, and he probably got it from Burke's or Debrett's. If you've got the newspaper from the period I'm somewhat more inclined to trust that. Maybe note both in the article? Mackensen (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You may be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free). Thanks. --Descendall 01:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful reply at User_talk:Molly_Mockford#Lewes. Sorry. --rbrwr^± 23:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stay civil. I can understand your frustration on the userbox front, but picking fights on Jimbo's user page will just get you warned/blocked, and will make anyone arguing for keeping userboxes seem willing to violate WP:POINT. I'll be completely honest: for a while I was a little tempted to do that too. But let's stay level-headed here. JDoorjam Talk 03:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that just illustrates the point doesn't it. They can MESS with my user page but touch Jimbos and you get blocked. Jooler 03:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a supporter of Don Bosco, take a look at this page.

• St John Bosco and LGBT edits evrik 04:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw. It's a pity about the tightening-up of image uploading, but probably for the better. I've got the German-language bio of Mackensen and some old postcards so I can probably scare up a usable image. Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is great to know that you stand always against the asses against the world. --Licinius 09:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ass? Latin? Either way it is very clearly an insult, but I am not offended. I just passed it on in the interests of Wikipedia. --Licinius 11:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But hey, I will make the case to you since you judge me an ass. The other football codes and the games that have followed them are on all based upon their original code of rules. Like say the American football is placed as descended from Rugby school rules, probably equally true as of AFL, which is stated quite differently. This is different and quite strange to have a section titled "Australian and Irish Variations". To be honest, on such a basis Rugby League is just as much an Australian variation of football, they both came from England, and Rugby League is the game of half the country. I changed it to something along those lines, though my memory fades to the exact words and that is how this began. --Licinius 11:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm trying (again) to get The George Washington University moved to George Washington University. Since you weighed in on this when it came up last year, I thought you might like to weigh in again. john k 23:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Inferior panama map.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thanks for that link, I was wondering where the info for that statement was. Assuming that editor got the official english language countries correct, there are 2 others that aren't fifa affiliated (so it should be 4 out of 45 then I guess - I'll fix it and make a note on talk). Cursive 00:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What controversy? I live in Australia and there has been no controversy at all. In fact the opposite. Most media outlets now refer to football as football. It makes a few Aussie Rules people unhappy, but this isn't controversial. Why is Australia singled out for mention? Answer: to mention Aussie Rules in the football section. "Controversy" is inaccurate. Jealousy is a more accurate descriptions and if you’ve followed any of the debate on wikipedia, you can certainly tell from some reactions that it’s not a POV statement. --Executive.koala 11:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my mistakes. Spelling is never my strong point. Actually, do you know of a way to spell check in wikipedia, because I had to do it in Microsoft Word, and when it started it was in American English. I don't think there was any errors in grammar.

Thanks, ISD

Thanks again for the help. I take it the spelling is now alright.

Hello ! I noticed that in adding the once deleted link to the Human Rights in France page, you summarized your edit as "rvv" which commonly means "Reverted Vandilism." (see rvv) I was the user who originally deleted this link, and as such I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to my edits as vandilism. I included an edit summary as well as participated in an ongoing discussion on the talk page (started by a user who wants to add this particular link). If you would like to include your arguments for changes to this article, I encourage you to come share your ideas on the talk page. - Aquarelle 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for translating an article listed at Wikipedia:German-English translation requests. This is just a little reminder to remove the translation from the list when you've done it and add it to the "completed translations" list at the bottom of the page - thanks! Saint|swithin 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, pardon me. It was a mystery person, then! :-) Saint|swithin 07:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent further edit warring I am bringing this here. What is the difference between canadian bacon and ham? They taste and look almost the exact same. The difference between what you call streaky bacon and canadian bacon is MUCH larger than the difference between canadian bacon and ham. If a redirect is necessary, I think it should be to ham.

Either way, canadian bacon should at bare minimum have its own section in whatever article it belongs to explains what it is. --MateoP 22:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

This seems to make little since.... Why is canadian bacon considered a "bacon" when it looks and tastes exactly like ham. It tastes nor looks like any kind of bacon I've ever seen. Either way, this all needs to be explained in a section in the bacon article if we are going to forward canadian bacon there.

---

The bacon articles covers it very poorly, but I changed it some. this should be an acceptable compromise. --MateoP 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I see you are unwilling to compromise. --MateoP 23:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your differences on the talk page. Reverting each other is pointless. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm intended at all. A previous post had similar logic to yours and the words from that post which stuck in my mind the most were "easy peasy" so, when I saw those words again I assumed that they were from the same person. The reference to archive heaven was meant to convey that the prior "easy peasy" posting was not in view but stored away in the talk's archives. No other hidden meanings at all so, if you were the earlier poster or not I encourage you to post your argument from time to time so as to keep it visible, things tend to get lost in the archives.  :-) hydnjo talk 00:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (later) Ah so, it was you. This is from archive 3 (last November):

Jesus Christ, why are people so thick. It's like this..

1. Choose a door; you're lucky it's a goat! but you had a 2/3 chance of choosing a goat so the odds were on your side.
2. Monty reveals the other goat.
3. You switch; it has to be the car as the other goat is gone.
4. You win!
5. If you had chosen not to switch you would have lost.
6. By not switching you're stuck with that 2/3 chance of getting a goat. Switching meant that you turned it into a 2/3 chance of winning the car.
7. Easy peasy. End of story. Nighty Night Jooler 02:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hydnjo talk 01:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that reference to the article, and letting me know. One of us should look up the original PPC piece.... --Macrakis 18:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how your "I can't quite see what you're getting into such a bother about" helps matters. You yourself were bothered enough to revert my change, furthermore asking me to "not act against the consensus", when there is no consensus. If you don't care, stay out of the debate and don't revert. I'm trying to use a standard Wikipedia avenue for settling this kind of dispute. You should respect that. Gsd2000 17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I can't respect your comment. I also cannot respect your attempts at claiming a consensus when it was three versus four - either you failed to check your facts before claiming that (multiple times), or you are being economical with the truth. However, that's all I'll say for now. I would not want to keep you any more from those intellectually challenging articles that you contribute to, such as Chav, Twiglets and Milky Bar. Gsd2000 23:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally - you asked me why I am getting so steamed about this issue. I find that quite ironic having read your contribution to the discussion on the nomenclature of River Plate for which you produced an outburst the likes of which I have never seen on Wikipedia (after losing). You're allowed to get steamed about a silly you-call-it-potayto-I-call-it-potaHto debate but I'm not about the quality and relevance of a paragraph in an article relating to five hundred years of history and hundreds of millions of lives? Gsd2000 00:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find these remarks pretty cheeky. I wanted to let you know I had to pull this user up about poor behaviour before, referring him to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, though not to any great effect. I'm pretty annoyed too that after all our efforts to accommodate him he has gone to RfC, presumably to get the result he wants. I wonder if there is anything else we can do, within ethical guidelines and Wiki rules of course, to help him to be a better member of the community. Guinnog 16:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find that pretty cheeky too. I was publicly accused by Guinnog of vandalism in my edits to British Empire, despite the fact that my contributions show I am a regular contributor to the European empire space. How is accusing a fellow contributor of vandalism being a better member of the community? Gsd2000 16:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your claim of "stalking", Jooler. A man is judged by his deeds. On Wikipedia, your deeds are your user contributions. I was simply looking to see if you were a regular contributor to the empire space (like I am). I found it mildly amusing that you had contributed to these articles (and your drunken outburst) - perhaps my wit was a little too cutting here. (I apologise). But there is a serious point at stake - I wouldn't edit an article that I am not qualified to edit. I was trying to see whether you were qualified to be making the statements that you were making. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but just because anyone can, it doesn't mean everyone should. (And no, that's not directed at you). Look at this for an example why: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=48787724 Gsd2000 01:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found your immediate revert of my compromise along with the comment "not acceptable" pretty arrogant on your part too. (ie it's not acceptable to you, so it's not allowed to stay.) Not to mention your repeated claims on the talk page that I was acting against a consensus when there was none (you still have not acknowledged that you were wrong in claiming that), and then your contribution to the debate that I was getting worried about nothing, after you had reverted my compromise and got what you wanted. I found your approach not only arrogant, but rather underhand too, as it appeared to me that you were attempting to swing a perfectly reasonable debate with falsehoods. Gsd2000 00:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you've reverted an edit to the Battersea Park page for containing an alleged spam external link. I wonder if you'd care to have a look at that user's other work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:London_street_skates

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Daniel_W

He keeps editing - he doesn't seem to engage in discussion. But - I admit - I'm kind of an interested party, so maybe a second (or nth) opinion would be good. Daniel Barlow 20:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on George_cowie (talk · contribs · count). I'll keep an eye on him and won't hesitate to block if he uploads any more copyvio material. Thanks. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jooler, apologies for revert on Cuba. But it's a complicated one that we've been mulling over for weeks. We're not wrong to say that Cuba is a communist state, but it's been agreed that it's not technically correct either in the info box due to the particular nature of the Cuban system, which differs somewhat from (say) Vietnam or the old Soviet bloc countries. You've highlighted a potential problem with the communist state page also, thanks. Btw I saw your River Plate argument recently from way back, am in complete agreement with your position, and am a little disappointed with the verdict! Keep up the good work --Zleitzen 09:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was reluctant to list the other cats which are currently named "GB & NI" on a "life is too short" basis :) There are only so many times I can take being accused of having a secret agenda in any one week! In addition, as the "vote" to keep the main cat as Category:Great Britain at the Olympics only ended as "Keep" due to no consensus, I suspect any attempt to rename those cats in the form "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will also end in "no consensus" which is in effect a "Keep" vote. Much argument for no gain. This is also the reason I have avoided editing those articles that incorrectly state things like The United Kingdom competes as Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Olympics as I am not inclined to get in an edit war. To be honest, although I'm strongly opposed to any use of the words United Kingdom in such cats (for no reason other than that this is wholly non-reflective of the real-world usage), I could live with "GB & NI" even allowing for the questionable accuracy. If you want to list the subcats for renaming, I'll support the rename, but I doubt this will be successful. (I also believe that regardless of the usage now, there have been times in the past when the form "GB & NI" was used officially at the Olympics, so some of the cats for past Olympics may arguably be correct!) Valiantis 20:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have watched the debate about what to call "." in amazement, and will comment on it shortly. But please don't go editing American articles into british versions, that is simply disruption to make a point (see WP:POINT - oh the irony :) Relax, chill. MartinRe 17:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very screwed up belief system. Michaelritchie200 17:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Argentina football 2002 handbag mockup.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ed g2s • talk 01:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOu know for a fact that I did that in good faith, and I didn'tunderstand the rules on this, and that I was trying to discuss it constructively with you on the talk page. Your post in my talk was just cynical and counter productive, especially as you threatened me with blocks. I feel that you have grossly mishandled this whole situation. Its a real shame, anyway, I'm going to re-write the article on my sandbox page, and hopefully be able to put a suitable version back on the FIFA world rankings page soon. Philc _T^E_C^I 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However resoponsible you think you have acted, I find that you have acted incomprehsibily rude in your handling of the situation, remember wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia, it is a community of editors. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just forget it. Theres no point in discussing anything now. It's been done. However, I reposted a revised version of the article, it layed out the same, but I re-wrote the paragraphs, I'd like your comments on it, so if its too similar you can remove it again or whatever... Philc _T^E_C^I 21:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to do anything appart from reshuffle the text when you only have one resource, its even harder to change it if its already in the most logical order. Anyway I'm pretty sure the copright applies to the actual text and not the ideas in it, so aslong as there are no sentences copied word for word. In case you actually cared i'm 16, however in england despite the dumbing down of the ducation system (from comments I've understood you have the same problem in the US), my parents shuffled me off to some private school, so I got a pretty good education. I was going to say something about papers, but now that Ive come to it, it seems pointless and self promoting... Philc _T^E_C^I 21:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. check the link you left on Joyous's page, i can't make any sense of it, it is a comparison between my sandbox and something to do with texas. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding removal of the comment text: For me, commented text gets in the way, and thus is more of a bother than it's worth. If you want to advertise the WikiProject, a better way to do it is to make a template to place at the top of the affected articles' talk pages. For instance:

• Template:WMATA
• Template:Dead malls
• Template:WikiProject Anti-war
• Template:WikiProject Myrtle Beach

It might be worthwhile to devise such a template, as it may very well breathe new life into an old, abandoned WikiProject. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After warning him to stop, I have had to block SchuminWeb. Not alone did he unilaterally redesign a page that was designed by a consensus, and redesigned dozens of pages unilaterally, he falsified the contents of the project page to suggest that the project backed his unilateral changes. That is way beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen it. Cool, isn't it? :-) Angmering 09:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you commented about the "X's favorite game" claim on Diplomacy (game) needing citation, I've added one source, edited the text to mention AH promo, and asked AH's old Diplomacy guy for more info. See that article's talk page. I hope to have this further fixed soon. Barno 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Petty played himself in that crappy Kevin Costner movie The Postman. -lethe ^{talk +} 14:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was that just a cameo though? Jooler 14:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I dunno. Maybe so. How do you decide whether it's a cameo or not? In my mind, a cameo is just an appearance by a famous person. Tom Petty's role was more than just an appearance. He played a character with an important rôle. On the other hand, his screen time probably only amounted to a few minutes. -lethe ^{talk +} 14:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the thing about I Was Monty's Double and To Hell and Back is that they were biographical portraits of the person/actor and Being John Malkovich had one of the lead characters as a version of the actor playing that part. I guess it was thing kind of thing I was thinking about when I posed the question. Jooler

I'm not familiar with either of those first two films, but it would appear that they are biographical or autobiographical? It would seem to me that if you allow autobiographical films (or even better, documentaries), then you can find a list as long as you want of movies where actors portray themselves. Maybe documentaries are too easy though, since the "actors" aren't really acting then. -lethe ^{talk +} 15:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every episode of the Ricky Gervais show Extras features an actor playing him or herself. -lethe ^{talk +} 22:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the actors in the Jim Jarmusch film Coffee and Cigarettes play themselves. -lethe ^{talk +} 02:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed on the football Wikiproject talk page that you expressed surprise we didn't have this article, as we had the Argentina and England football rivalry page that I created last year. Well, now we have one! Still very first drafty and needs a lot of improvement, but it's a start. Angmering 06:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is diving similar to gamesmanship? --Spondoolicks 09:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheating is a related concept. Diving is a specific example of cheating. It is not directly related to gamesmanship. The 'See also' section is not a game of 'six degrees of seperation'. --Spondoolicks 13:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Those articles either are talking about cheating and gamesmanship or simply misuse the term. I could give you a few dozen examples of articles which say things like "he was literally hanging on by the skin of his teeth" but that doesn't mean that the word "literally" has some extra meaning different to what's in the dictionary, it just means the journalist's a bit crap. Diving is cheating, gamesmanship is about gaining an advantage without actually cheating. The rolling around and making it seem like a foul tackle is worse than it was - that could be called gamesmanship, but that's not diving. --Spondoolicks 14:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm surprised I managed to spell it in a way accepted by any variant of English. Oldelpaso 08:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite there not having been a match for third place at Uruguay 30, the final standings put the Yanks in third place.

Thanks for your message. I already knew goal difference wasn't used to split ties until 1974, I didn't include them with this purpose. When I was editing the qualifying articles, someone suggested that goal difference should be added to all tables, for curiosity if nothing else. As long as the articles keep clear that other ways were used to split ties, such as play-offs, I see no problem in keeping the goal difference there. --BLOGuil 16:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I wasn't going to add goal difference, only did this because someone (unfortunately I don't remember the username) suggested and I liked the idea. If you want to edit and remove these columns, it's also OK for me. After all, this is what Wiki is about, different points of view converging to better articles. Regards. --BLOGuil 21:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tie breaker is goal differential.
1930          P G W T L F A  D
3  USA        4 3 2 0 1 7 6 +1 66,6% 
4  Yugoslavia 4 3 2 0 1 7 7  0 66,6%

Same as in 1950 when the yanks took the match but finished two places lower.
1950          P G W T L F A  D
 8 England    2 3 1 0 2 2 2  0 33,3% 
 9    Chile   2 3 1 0 2 5 6 -1 33,3% 
10    USA     2 3 1 0 2 4 8 -4 33,3%

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Libro0 (talk • contribs)

I have been asked been asked to provide references for rankings but when I did so I guess they were not considered reputable sources. So I thought this one might be suitable. http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/releases/en/fwc_origin_en.pdf Libro0 17:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Thanks for the message on my talk page. Yes, I'm lucky enough to have all four volumes. I'll check out the query you mention - also, if you think I can help with any scans for things you're doing, let me know. Mikedash 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm afraid things are only getting more confusing.

Association Football and the Men Who Made It, I, 39, is imprecise as to the number of rules passed at the meeting on 1 December, but a couple of paras later refers to "the nine rules of the Association in 1863"!

Geoffrey Green's work (pp.34-8) includes, as Appendix 4, "The Football Association Laws as accepted December 1863", and while this does list fourteen laws, both in the draft of 24 November 1863 and the finally accepted version of the laws, encoded in December, it does so in the form of a list of 11 laws that parallel the Cambridge rules (as published by the FA in October 1863), followed by three others that have no parallel. After that, Green also lists 3 old Cambridge rules that were not adopted by the FA. These were Cambridge rules 8, 9 and 10.

Green's text attempts to set the various sets of laws side by side but because the Cambridge and FA laws are ordered differently, his numbering is very eccentric; for the accepted FA laws of 12/63 it runs 1, 2, 3, 6, 5, 7, 4, 9, 11, 12, 10, 8, 13, 14!

I haven't time to transcribe all this now, but I could certainly scan and post Green's full discussion if that would help. I'm hazy about current UK copyright - the book was published in 1953, and thus falls outside the old 50-year rule, so I think it probably ought to be possible to upload to Wikimedia Commons - you may know more than me about this, so please advise. If not, I could always use an "away" venue such as Imageshack if you feel that would help sort things out.

It may help to roughly summarise the 14 accepted laws, as of December 1863, as given by Green (I have reordered them to make things a bit clearer):

1. Size of pitch

2. Toss and commencement of game

3. Change ends after goal is scored

4. Goal scored when ball passes between posts

5. Throw in at right angles

6. Early offside law - 'When a player has kicked the ball any one of the same side who is nearer to the opponent's goal line is out of play..."

7. When ball is out of play, the side whose player touches it first gains possession

8. Fair catch law; players must make their mark

9. No player shall carry the ball

10. No tripping or hacking

11. A player shall not throw the ball

12. No player shall take the ball from the ground with his hands

13. Players can throw or pass the ball from a fair catch or catches the ball on the first bounce

14. No projecting iron plates or nails, etc on boots

I hope this helps, but fear I may simply have added to the confusion. Still, if FIFA, the FA and the ASF can't agree, it's a bit optimistic to assume I might be able to provide a solution from my modest library. Mikedash 10:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Looking at the article, it could be improved and expanded quite a bit - I'll try to find time to do that, but sadly not right now.

You may have noticed I've tried to gather together as many players from the pre-1914 period as possible into the new category "Early (pre-1914) Association Football players", mainly just to make it easier to see what's already available on this site and what's needed. My main contributions to date are Leigh Richmond Roose, Cuthbert Ottaway, G.O. Smith, "Nuts" Cobbold, Cunliffe Gosling and Raby Howell, all of which I'd hope you'd enjoy. Eventually, though, I hope to find the time to expand the current category listing to somewhere in the region of 120 names; the most important omissions at present seem to be AM & PM Waters, Renny-Tailyour, Marindin, Ned Doig, Pa Jackson & Major Sudell, but I have a list of about 30 names worth adding and have begun collecting material to enable me to profile them. Right now, though, work on a new book is threatening to start getting in the way once again.

Hope you enjoy Batavia's Graveyard (my personal favourite among my books). Nice, anyway, to come across a fellow enthusiast for the early history of the game. Mikedash 11:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when I was at Uni I had free access to that on their network, and used it quite a lot when I was for reasons that need not concern us here researching the year 1963 a lot. In fact I have downloaded onto my computer every issue of The Times from around September to November that year! Sad, eh? Angmering 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now we can disagree all we want about the United States national team site, you're entitled to your opinion as am I. However, I find your behavior to be quite shameful. "Get over it" and saying you're reverting "petulance." Hardly my friend. You asked me to check my sources, I did, I found my verifiable source, and since you don't like it you resort to petty namecalling and the like. Stick to discussing the issue, not to adding sniping comments, because as I said on the talk page, it makes you sound rather ridiculous. Batman2005 14:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jooler, I'm happy and glad that you saw my intervention as neutral. I tried my best to keep it that way. I understand that sometimes tempers flare, but try my best to never take anything personal in WP, so our past incident was long forgotten by the time I got in this matter. I do have to tell you that indeed the conversation (from your end) was held in the most civil manner, and if you check Batman's user page you'll see that I even said so to him. I'm happy that you're feeling better about things nowadays and I hope that every encounter we have in the future is as constructive as the one we just had. :)

Regarding the point in case, I do see your points here and I can't blame either of you for not wanting to compromise since both have strong arguments for them (although I grant you that the FIFA source that Batman provided doesn't intend to state that US is 3rd and Yug is 4th but rather chooses one over the other because two names didn't fit in one cell... an infortunate decision on their part). My vision for the "joint 3rd" was one of being consistent with other pages.

Anyway, I think that if the RfC doesn't yield better results than this, then you should try to make the change happen but be very careful of starting an edit war. Maybe starting RfM is the right way...

Good luck!!!

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 14:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You delete the No.18....

Dušan Petković is No.16, you delete the wrong one. Matt86hk talk 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a while since I uploaded that photo, but if I remember correctly... the photo came from CottonTown and the caption came from the reference given in the Blackburn Rovers article , namely: Mike Jackman, Blackburn Rovers an illustrated history. It's always possible I made an error transcribing the information from the book, and I don't have it available any longer to check (library book). If you have two indepedent sources suggesting it is Inglis, then I'd change it to that and then add the book as a reference to both the BR article and the photo page itself. Next time I'm in the library I'll see if the Jackman book is still on the shelves and double check. Thanks for fact checking it though... much appreciated. - Motor (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the football chant article is where I got that information from in the first place, cross-referenced with other articles. However, WP:CITE currently disallows using other articles as citations. –Unint 21:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, er, don't watch football at all (even right now), so I could not claim to know anything about that. Even until you mentioned it to me I didn't know the scale of how prevalent it was. So you see my slightly embarassing position here. –Unint 22:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying to your query. Like you, I have been distracted by the World Cup. I've not come across this story, and it seems inherently improbable - as Kevin Keegan once observed, "You can't play with a one-armed goalkeeper - not at this level." The closest I can come to it is Arthur Lea, a one-armed Welsh international who represented Wrexham c.1890. he was a forward, though. Mikedash 12:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On June 14, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article M. E. Clifton James, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Cool Jooler 22:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to thank you for your excellent contributions to wikipedia. U da man!

The wikipedia article name is caramelization, not caramelisation, and as such I think for the purposes of consistancy it makes more sense to write it as the former, not the latter.

Hehe ... just managed to comply with the new "rules", 12hrs 43mins by my calculations, but I'll take it on the chin anyway :-)

--Cactus.man ✍ 14:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matchsticks for the eyeballs is the best I can recommend at the moment. Updates can happen anytime after 6 hours from the previous one. But as you missed it, here it is again. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was kidding my friend! I hope you didn't take offense, it was really a lighthearted comment. Batman2005 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me an example of what you're asking me to do, because I'm not sure I understand your request. Ie, how are you trying to squish the page horizontally? Reply on my page, please. --Palffy 15:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my latest template edit and let me know if that's what you wanted.. --Palffy 15:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't touched that 'bloody table' Jooler, not since I put it there. If someone keeps deleting and putting it back in, it ain't me. I don't see what you've got against it anyway, it just shows a record of how well each team performed, what percentage of their games they won, how many goals they scored, etc. etc. I can leave out the Points column if it makes you happier. --Mark J 09:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• All the times it was reinstated, it was done by IP addresses. None of those IP addresses are mine. I'm sorry to have got you so angry but I'm not lying. --Mark J 14:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied too on Mark's talk page, as I think the above was actually meant for me. Though I may be wrong.

Good luck tonight! --Guinnog 15:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:W.S. Kenyon-Slaney.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

I spend a lot of time correcting dozens of mistakes in the Legion of Honour article. I was also unhappy with the spelling "Honor", Google alone is not a justification of this spelling. Now I am amazed to see that all my work is destroyed, the mistakes are all back. I know that the redirects were not propper but i failed to get them fight. But this is allmost v****lism!

Are you going to restore the article?

Faithfulluy yours,

Robert Prummel 01:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, you misunderstood my motives. See your talk page and the relevant pages. Hopefully the situation will be sorted out soon. Jooler 09:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually comment on edit summaries, but seriously: allowed AND conceded both make sense in that context, and as a native speaker of (American) English, either word sounds fine. I have no problem with you changing it, but please at least be civil when you do. Thanks for your edits, though! --SuperNova |T|C| 13:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence read :-

• "..., while Ghana (#50) had allowed only 4 goals in all of their World Cup qualification matches combined."

To me this does not make grammatical sense. It is a nonsense statement. So I was somewhat suprised by your objection. So I looked up allowed on Google and on [1] - we find;

Chiefly Southern & Midland U.S. - To admit; concede: "I allowed he was right".

• To my ears I allowed he was right is again ungrammatical nonsense. It appears that this is an uncommon dialectal usage of the word. It is most definitely one people in Britain are unaware of. Good Day to you. Jooler 21:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I suppose. As an international encyclopedia, we should be clear to all English speakers, which your revision is. I just never realized that meaning of "allow" wasn't common elsewhere! I am from the Southern US, so that may be part of it, but even outside my region, national sports (maybe I should say "sport" ;-) broadcasts often use allow in that sense. We don't hear much about (association) football here, but it's not uncommon to hear "The pitcher allowed seven runs" or "The Giants have allowed 20 points or more in the last 5 games". That's probably the frame of reference the original writer was coming from, though as I ... allowed? ... earlier, the more widespread usage should prevail. Thanks for improving the article and helping me learn something new! --SuperNova |T|C| 22:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jooler, I think an inclusionist atheistic footballer with is just the person for this task: Will you consider commenting on some AfD nominations and merge-delete propositions that I believe are an attempt to drive off a good editor? (OK, she's my wife. But she's exhausted by this fight; her articles are written in good faith and this editor is making a mockery of WP.)

• Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture
• Lost books of the Old Testament
• Lost Book of the Covenant
• Lost Book of Jasher
• Lost Book of Enoch

Thank you! --JuanFiguroa 03:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly, thoroughly pissed off at some really comprehensive work being just erased without thought by Marcus22. Thank you for highlighting your concern. Bentley Banana 12:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Horacio Elizondo article can you vote at the bottom to see whether we should keep Rooney's view on his decision in the article as I'm trying reach a consensus as soon as possible. Thanks.

Hello. Thanks for your message. I'm only implementing the change after the debate has run its course according to policy, and have no strong feelings in the matter, but it seems to me that "Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom" is a better title in a global encyclopedia than "Members of the Privy Council"! There is a sub-category Category:Members of the Privy Council of England. Would it be better to move the person you mentioned to that category? Regards, RobertG ♬ talk 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection is noted. I fully understand your reasoning: you are right that the debate needs to be reopened. Your message suggests to me this proposal, how about it? - I'll finish implementing the change, so that the category is no longer split (a split is certainly the worst possible outcome). Meanwhile you can re-open the debate (it needs to be you since I don't have the knowledge of the subject that you clearly do) by listing the new category at WP:CFD as a new nomination for renaming back to the old name - if your reasoning is correct you will no doubt garner support for the reversal easily enough. If the consensus is then for moving it back again then I undertake to do it myself. That will be in roughly a week. There will then be a much clearer consensus to keep it at "Members of the Privy Council" (or whatever consensus is reached) than if we just reverse it now with the note "this consensus was incorrect in the view of Jooler". In any case, I don't think a reversal now would be within Wikipedia policy. Do you have an alternative suggestion? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On thinking about this over lunch, I decided that having a split category was the worst of all possible worlds. I also read on the category talk page that the original intention of the category was to include only current members. I have therefore instructed the robot to finish the category rename (since it was already about 70% complete, and because I think it is the correct implementation of Wikipedia policy). Please propose the category be renamed back again, as I suggested above, if you would like to. However, you may suggest some other approach: for instance, what about a top category "Privy Councils", and a sub-category for each current Privy Council containing current Privy Councillors, together with a category for each historical Privy Council containing all their current- and ex-members? Believe me, I do understand your concerns, and will help if I can. Let me know. Best wishes. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that several people named Lord Darcy were historical figures. However, if you look at the wiki links to "Lord Darcy" [2] you'll see that basically every single one of them is about the fictional character, not the real individuals. In the context of Wikipedia, it's a reasonable assumption that there are more people looking for the fictional character. -- Kazrak 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point, however, is specifically in the context of the wiki link for "Lord Darcy". In encyclopedic usage, the real Lords Darcy would be referred to by full name and title on first reference; that would be wikilinked. The fictional character is known solely by that title. Google references are inconclusive; of the first ten hits on "Lord Darcy", six are for the books, two are for Thomas Darcy, one is to the Wikipedia page in question, and one is to a page about a pub. It would be nice to know what typical wikipedians are looking for when they type 'Lord Darcy' into the search box, but I have no way of knowing that. At this point, I will leave it as-is. -- Kazrak 21:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You messed up the ITN on the mian page! It's not the Jules Rimet Trophy for goodness sake. Brazil won that outright in 1970. Jooler 22:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really ? Thanks for telling me. FIFA World Cup Trophy says "The replacement trophy, officially known as the Jules Rimet Trophy, ....", though. Anyway, is it better on ITN now ? -- PFHLai 22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some idiot just added that Jooler 22:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I got duped by the idiot ...... -- PFHLai 22:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vadalizing talk:humor. Thank you. 195.18.216.204 08:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jooler: Please don't erase 195.18.216.204's comments from the Humour Talk page. Respond to them, instead. (Even if we've all discussed this many times!) Thanks, Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-10 08:32 (UTC)

Goal Average was used in this World Cup to determine who placed 1st and who 2nd in a group (like Group 2 between France and Yugoslavia). Play-offs were used to determine qualification to next round. --Calippo 09:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Do you have any source so I can link it? Mine was simply the pre-existing Wikipedia Article. --Calippo 10:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you have seen I am re-editing the whole page to be uniform with World Cup 2006, and adding referees, attendance and match reports. Let me finish it and then we will talk about Goal Difference. But I see your point. Ciao. --Calippo 10:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on WC '58 talk page. --Calippo 12:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to tell you why I put GD. I would like to have uniformity between World Cups. So I used 2006 template for 1958 Cup, and then I added GAv. I am aware that GD was not a discriminant in 1958, but it is commonly used today when displaying soccer results, even when it is not used to rank the teams. And there are, on the other hand, discriminants which are not commonly shown. I imagine that if we wanted to display the results of an early tournament where just points were used we would probably still show W-D-L and GF-GA, even when not important for the tournament itself. The point is: is GDiff at the same "level" of the above or not? I am not saying we should include it, just want to tell you that the choice is not that obvious. It would have been obvious to a 1958 man, not to a 2006 one. Which is the philologically right choice? Ciao.--Calippo 15:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, in one case you substitute correct info with wrong one. In the other one you add correct, useless (although interesting maybe) info. But don't worry, I'm removing GD, this is just pour parler. --Calippo 15:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, are you sure about the terminology? "Goal Average" recalls more the average of goal scored per game rather than the ratio GF/GA. Here in Italy we call it "Goal Quotient" (if this word exists in english). It is still used in sports such as volleyball (where of course it is "Set Quotient"). Bye.--Calippo 15:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the quotes you sent me. I have seen they talk about "goal average". My question was rather is "goal average" the ratio GF/GA? It would be quite a curious terminology. (I am sorry for my bad english). --Calippo 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing what turns up in archaic reference books, isn't it? Surprisingly useful things... Shimgray | talk | 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to bother you, but I am working on 1930 World Cup article and I need to change the title of a linked article. Is it possible to do that? Or I need to create a new one and propose the old one to deletion? Thanks, --Calippo 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Calippo 16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Very glad you enjoyed the book. Mikedash 13:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you posted your opposition to the category moves. How would you prefer things to be categorized? Could you post your suggestions to WP:SHIPS? I'd really like to come up with a coherent scheme, and simply voting "oppose" to moves without participating in the discussion of the proposal is unhelpful. TomTheHand 18:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How much debate is required? David D. (Talk) 21:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to let you know that I changed the redirects in response to the page move that had already occurred. I'm changing them back right now. --Usgnus 22:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [3] SilkTork 11:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stalking anyone. A stalker is someone who disrupts, according to WP policy. What kind of disruption do you think I'm causing you? But you are talking behind my back, and that ain't no cool. See User talk:Violetriga#Stalker. Until next time, JackLumber. 22:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

behined your back? Hardly - you're following me around. Nowhere is behind your back. You have openly admitted following me and trying to counter my "anti-American English systematic bias" - he means "systemic". See [4]. Jooler 07:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that he does indeed mean "systematic." But you may well believe he should mean "systemic." Myself, I think he means what he says, and may well be correct! --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-21 14:57 (UTC)

Please have another look at Chance cards. I've included notes about the development of the cards in the board game, and included UK edition notes, as well as a notation about how the cards are changed for every other edition (localizations, special editions, etc.). I'll be doing the Community Chest cards shortly. --JohnDBuell 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need coders for the WikiProject Disambigation fixer. We need to make a program to make faster and easier the fixing of links. We will be happy if you could check the project. You can Help! --Neo139 09:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I remember you had a rather similar interaction regarding the proposed addition of "unofficial" rankings or standings tables into World cup articles. I wondered if you could watch my conversation with User talk:Libro0 in case I need support. Don't worry if you can't or don't want to. --Guinnog 16:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were one of the people I had in mind when I designed this award. And we really must see if we can progress our discussion about the 1966 World Cup Final; maybe by bringing in other people to the discussion? --Guinnog 10:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to delete the barnstar I gave you in your last edit with the edit summary "rvv"? No problem if you don't like the award, but it was well-meant and I'd hardly call it vandalism. Best wishes --Guinnog 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I don't have a problem if you don't like it as I said. I know they are not everybody's cup of tea. --Guinnog 00:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI that was a serious question. Cuzandor 02:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jooler, I have undone your recent edit to British. The prior version is more compatible with WP:DAB and MoS:DAB than the version you put there. I think there is certainly room to make the page more consitent to the style guidelines, and I welcome your help to get it there. It's a tough page! Thanks! - grubber 16:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I noticed you turned British into a non-disambig page. I'm currently doing a disambiguation run with AWB to clean up links to British, but in the meantime anyone clicking the 3000+ links to British should really be given the disambiguation page so that they know what they're looking for (i.e. what context). grubber appears to be familiar with the disambiguation guidelines in the MoS, so I'm inclined to use his revision. However, I don't want to start a revert war so I've left the page as it is. I'd appreciate if you could explain your edit, or tell me if you're willing to go back to grubber's MoS:DAB styled version. --Draicone ^(talk) 22:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jooler;

Recently I switched out your current Windows user template with one which has replaced it. This was in an effort to clear the first template of all transclusions. Would you please replace that template with the new master to help with this effort? I would like to say, when I put User windowsXP up for deletion, that it has no transclusions, but if you don't switch it out, I will not be able to say that. - LA @ 09:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jooler,

What are you protesting? I am currently protesting the German Userbox Solution. By making multifunction user templates to reduce the amount of user templates there are, it is hoped that this will stave off the userfication of all user templates. Those who oppose the whole idea of user templates may be more kindly disposed towards them if there were fewer of them. That is my hope. - LA @ 02:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I would like to thank you for your contributions to the English football league system article. Your explantion on why you reverted my edits to this article is noted. And I wish to thank you for the concise edit summary you gave there. But I have to disagree with your reasoning (for the time being at least). Please allow me to give a humble explanation:

On a personal basis, I too would like to create articles about these divisions. In fact, I am one of the major contributors to non-league football and their respective leagues. But sad to say, most of the leagues in level 12 and below which I had created were changed into redirect pages. Moreover, some of the non-league clubs in level 12 and below which I have created were deleted to my dismay. A consensus was held and now, it seems that any club in level 11 and below of the football pyramid are deemed non-notable. This is very discouraging for me but I HAVE to respect the consensus on this matter. Similarly, the individual divisions I created were mercilessly transferred into redirect pages. I had no choice but to respect this decision. Please read the comments about this here and here. Also please read WP:CORP as well and its talk pages.

However, I am confident that this will change in the near future and the notability guidelines for English football clubs WILL be lowered. But for the time being at least, the red-linked divisions would be deleted even if you were to attempt to create them. Trust me, I personally experienced this!

In conclusion, if you disagree with my comments regarding this matter, I would like to suggest that we resume our discussion in the talk page. I do not intend to be involed in an edit war here, so I will be reverting back tthe edits of this article to my edits soon. If you have any objections over this, I strongly suggest that we refer this to the above-mentioned talk page, in the full view of other users.

Hope that you would understand the position I am in about this matter. These article will be created, but not too soon because of the recent consensus about this. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please post your comments about this here --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baronetcies - Kittybrewster 12:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I got your username from the Association Inclusionist Wikipedians. I'm trying to work against a band of linkocrites (see en:User:cochese8). You look as if you're a valuable editor and I could really use some help [preserving] a great link. I would ask you to review the discussion and vote keep if you agree with the link's value. Thanks for your help! Cochese8 17:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your inclusion of a source for this film. I had no idea it was ranked as a flop. It was re-released about 15 years ago on VHS and after being told this I enquired about buying one, to be told at HMV in oxford Street that they had 20 copies in and they had all been sold! Thanks again. Chelsea Tory 16:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]