User talk:Jguk/Archive2

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

Wales

I know that the Welsh do play, but is it really popular there; more popular than in Scotland? [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:35, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Jewish terrorist organizations

Please reconsider your vote on Category:Jewish terrorist organizations in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion in light of recent comments. 172 12:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hitler

In a way yes. Independance movement leaders such as Netaji Subashchandra Bose met Hitler and allied his party with the axis in a bid to drive out the British. He based his principle on 'an enemy's enemy is a friend' He declared a free state of India was was promptly recognised by the Axis. In another plane, many right-wing organisations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, VHP, Shiv Sena support the Nazi idealogy and openly propogate their ideals based on Nazism. In the state of Gujarat, the hardline right-wing government has not criticised Hitler at all; mitigating his ills in school history text-books, to elevate him as a Robin Hood. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:24, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

This does not mean that the Indian government or the people idolise Hitler or Nazism. Only the extreme-right wing groups. [PS. Continue discussions in Dec] [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 18:05, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

About Japan and Hitler -- It is not true. I live in Tokyo, and have studied Japan's Foreign Policy and History for some 16 years now. Granted, Hitler is not seen as the Devil Himself in Japan, but that is more because there was no direct effect on Japan (i.e. no Jewish Community or Holocaust Survivors group to remind society of his evil). Japanese would rather forget about the war and that portion of history-- they have moved on. If any memories remain, they center on Japan's atrocities in China, and/or the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Davejenk1ns 03:22, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BCE?

Jongarrettuk hi. I noticed you have been (among other changes) changing BCE to BC and CE to AD in various pages. Now, I don't particularly like BCE and CE (I think there are confusing neologisms), but I thought they are actually the standard style here. Has anything changed lately? Gady 22:38, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are mistaken. As noted on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), either form is permissible as long as each article is consistent in itself. The edits you spotted were to restore consistency in accordance with Wikipedia policy. jguk 19:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adding Buddha, Jesus, etc. to Muhammad page

Dear Jon,

I don't understand why you felt that it added anything to the Muhammad article to add links to Buddha, Jesus, etc. If you create a page called Founders of Religions, or a category, then you can add that to the Muhammad page and all is fine. But if you insert links to all other founders in every founder page, either you're going to have to do EVERYONE (and swamp the pages with links) or you're going to have to pick and choose who's most important, which is POV.

I'll wait for your response before I delete any links. Perhaps you can convince me I'm wrong. Zora 12:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I created a page called List of founders of major religions. I'm not at all sure of the wisdom of it, but it's better than adding more clutter to the Muhammad page. And hey, I could be wrong and it could be a useful page. Zora 14:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hitler's Suicide

Jon:

A serious question: Do you know of any non-revisionist historians who have questioned the generally-accepted view that Hitler died by suicide on April 30, 1945?

I pose this question now because I have a vague recollection of seeing at least one non-"revisionist history" work on Hitler which questioned the reports of his suicide -- and, as a non-specialist, would prefer to know if there are *any* historians outside of the Irving/Zundel/etc. circles who hold this opinion. Any assistance on your part would be appreciated.

(You may have noticed that my preferred approach to Sam Spade's recent reversions was to "soften" his language (at least until the matter could be resolved), though I suspect your decision to eliminate his comments entirely was probably more appropriate.)

CJCurrie 19:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't, but then I'm not familiar with which historians have conducted serious research into the matter. I'm quite prepared to accept that there may be a small number of non-revisionist historians have questioned it - indeed, if there is evidence to question the generally-accepted view, it would be foolish not to examine that evidence and see where it leads.

My motivation is to have a better worded article consistent with the generally-accepted position. After all, Wikipedia is not a place for original research. However, if a few notable historians (revisionist or otherwise) have questioned the generally-accepted account, I see no reason why we should not make a brief reference to it. But we should not overdo it. Therefore my approach to the wording Sam used is to delete all the 'some people have claimed that' sort of phrases that appeared in far too many sentences and clauses of the description of the generally-accepted case, but to acknowledge that a few have raised doubts at the end. I would have no problem if Sam wished to expand on the views of the historians who question the generally-accepted account in a subsidiary article.jguk 20:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- - Thanks for your response. I may look further into this matter myself. CJCurrie 21:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Namespace

I've created a Wikiproject for cleaning up the Wikipedia namespace, as was suggested on the Vilage Pump. Please add listings of your projects, like the Better writing guide, there, and feel free to change anything you feel like. JesseW 07:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My expansion, clean-up and NPOV template additions

Expansion and cleanup are self explanitory. I add cleanup when articles are not in Wikipedia style, e.g. no links, long long long paragraphs rather than having sections etc. Expansions have been added for the reason that the article is seriously lacking, either because it is (a) a stub, (b) lacking valuable information - usually historicity or non-biblical evidence, or (c) lacking information on Jewish/Islamic views which are often a 1 sentance section. NPOV- usually presented from the point of view of biblical inerrancy, or similar. CheeseDreams 23:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am just going to go through all 53 and re-revert them. Please note that I have been adding the articles to a catagory, not just adding the tags, reverting my edits removes the catagory too. CheeseDreams 23:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom statement

The statement was ruining the continuity of the project page. I didn't think you'd mind if I reformatted it, but if you don't want to I'll respect that. There's no need to be rude, though. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:39, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't think I was, and didn't intend to be, rude. Of course, when typing comments, it is difficult to convey tone. I meant to convey a firm request and a slight irritance (editing others' comments outside the article namespace is, as I'm sure you'll agree, irritating). I meant nothing more by it. If I conveyed anything else, then I apologise for it. jguk 00:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good. No hard feelings, then? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:49, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

No hard feelings at all. jguk 00:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:55, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Elections

You may remember that I coordinated the previous two elections, for the board, and for the arbitration committee. I am willing to coordinate this election as well, and have asked Elian to assist. However, we would like to have the support of the candidates to do this. Do you support us coordinating the election? My policy is to be entirely neutral, and to ensure this, I will not be voting myself (I didn't vote in previous elections either). All results will be announced following the final count. Please answer on my talk page. Danny 01:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) per request Pedant 02:04, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Cheese dreams

If he hasn't been vandalising and only inserting POV statements, then please don't list him on Requests for vandalism. I would suggest taking the matter to WP:RFC or Wikipedia:Arbitration. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bias

I'd like your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Thanks. Chameleon 12:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I am currently a candidate to become an Arbitrator, but am currently not an Arbitrator, I feel it would be inappropriate to comment. Sorry. jguk 12:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem with not commenting on any of the pending cases, is that you've been here a very short time, and it is difficult to form any insights into how you would conduct yourself on the Arbitration Committee if you refuse to comment on any of its cases.

Since you are not on the Arbitration Committee, you can offer your opinion without affecting the fairness of those proceedings.

A case that is not so cut-and-dried can reveal a lot about the character of the individuals who are given authority to make decisions about such a case.

How about the arbitration case involving Shorne? Do you agree or disagree that his actions warrant blocks or a ban?

For example, would you have blocked Shorne from editing communism-related articles for the length of the arbitration proceedings?

If the other arbitrators were discussing whether to ban him for a few months, how would you respond?

As it stands, your candidate statement is just an abstract collection of words that can be interpreted in any number of ways. A powerful way for you to overcome this abstraction, and the brief period of time that you have been a member of Wikipedia, is to give us real, practical insight into how you will conduct yourself.

If you refuse to comment on any of the pending cases, then at a bare minimum, could you take a look at some of the past cases over on the Requests for Arbitration page, and explain if you would have ruled in the same manner or differently? Please pick a case that isn't so cut-and-dried.

Thanks for running for election. I appreciate having more choices from which to choose.

Cheers,

--DV 01:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will add an example of how I would have dealt with an already decided case tomorrow. It's better that way as then I can comment on how I see the whole process. I was going to do it tonight, but it's taken me longer than I thought. Lot's of irrelevant evidence to sift through to find the relevant stuff:) jguk 23:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"unsupported nonsense"

Please be more polite in edit summaries, and review talk pages and links before removing content. See Talk:Adolf_Hitler#Nazi_mysticism for answers to the confusion you had. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My edit summary was "rv - Sam, I've made a point by point rebuttal of your argument on the talk page that illustrates you have little evidence to support your claims - please don't keep reinserting them- and TALK don't RV". I don't see what's impolite about this (given there are only so many words you can add to a summary). Having responded to all your comments in detail, I find it impolite that you choose to ignore them all. If you cannot respond adequately to my reasoned objections, then your comments have no place in the article. jguk 21:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

lets be frank

we clearly arn't seeing eye to eye. I feel that you are ignoring the facts of the matter (some people view Hitler to be a diety, specifically Kalki). I'm sorry if you didn't like some of the links. Maybe some of them were ill chosen. I also apologize for getting angry about what I felt was a rude edit summary. However, the facts remain the same:

Savitri Devi and Miguel Serrano clearly were proponants of this.
they are 2 people, famous ones even
Ergo, some people feel Hitler to have been a diety
people, especially famous ones, thinking a man is a diety is noteworthy on his article, at least in passing

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 22:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your citing of the Kalki article adds absolutely nothing to your argument. And anyway, if your total number of people who believe this number's 2 (and that's assuming avatar=diety), then I continue to argue I must be right that this comment should not appear in the main Adolf Hitler article. Keep it in Esoteric Hitlerism where it belongs. Esoteric seems a very good word for it, after all. jguk 22:54, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We don't agree, and its likely we arn't going to. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 23:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Human rights article

I've asked for some more clarification. Thanks for editing constructively, by the way. I think it reflects well on you! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz

While it is not self-evident, we eventually came to the conclusion, with the help of Tim Sterling, that Gzornenplatz is a reincarnation of Wik. These matters are difficult to spot right off, but over time the personality of a Wikipedia editor will fall into a recognizable pattern which can be recognized if they attract enough attention. Proof, as in this case, comes from determining whether both users are editing from the same ip. Fred Bauder 22:42, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Bulawayo

Thanks for your added info on Bulawayo! Have you ever, by chance, lived there? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:52, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

No. Just what I've seen on the telly and can get from the net. jguk 23:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams

Hello, do you know what's up with CheeseDreams? I noticed you threatened sen with a 24-hour ban, but se appears to still be making very strange edits. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 00:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That wasn't a threat, but more a reminder to CheeseDreams that the three revert rule was almost certain to get passed in a few hours, so that if he reverted four times today, he would get banned. I'm not a sysop anyway, so there's 0% of me imposing a ban on CheeseDreams or anyone else. jguk 09:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Three revert rule

FYI, the three revert rule starts with "This guideline applies to each person". See Wikipedia:Three revert rule. jguk 17:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FYI, it further states "A growing consensus is that, since the mere incidental fact of one side outnumbering the other does not, alone, make the majority right, each side of an argument should be limited to 3 reverts per day" CheeseDreams 17:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hang on. Where did you get that from. It doesn't say that at all. Instead, it says the exact opposite: "3RR specifically does not apply to groups" jguk 17:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RfC on CheeseDreams

I would like to start an RfC on CheeseDreams, would you be willing to start it with me?--Josiah 23:18, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'd support this. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ

ᑐ]] 00:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/CheeseDreams--Josiah 04:12, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

London Wikimeet Dec 3

Hi I came here to say congrats on finding me. I noticed that you live in london, and just wanted to make you aware of the wikimeet this friday Wikipedia:Meetup/London. Hope you can come. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Copyright

Thats the second time I've heard 70 years (not in respect to this though). I've always been taught in Media studies 50 years after issue of copyright, but that might just be Australia (or US). It is a 1935 work, so if it is 70 years in the UK, it will be out of copyright next year. Maybe we can cross fingers that they won't notice until then. Also most articles I have made have had minor changes to the word arrangement, as grammar rules seem to have changed slightly since then, I just made the template more so that people would know it was dated information.

If its 70 years after authors death, that is a bit iffy, as encyclopedias don't tend to have specific authors, and I definitely didn't find any mentioned in the book covers or anything.

If you feel that copyright doesn't apply, I'll remove that phrasing from the template. Most articles were changed by at least 10%, hence the phrasing "based upon text derived from" in the Template.

Thanks for pointing this out. --ZayZayEM 00:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I answered you in my talk page. muriel@pt 09:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal

Outside of apologizing for having been angry and perhaps rude with you at one point on my talk page, I don't have a solution (other than what I am already doing, inserting the section regularly, but not so often to be a disruptive "revert war"). However I do think some dialogue may be appropriate, so long as it isn't cyclical. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 13:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams RfAR

I'm very confused by that RfAR, is CheeseDreams raising it against all those people, or is someone raising it against CheeseDreams? Jayjg 22:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

it's all a matter of perspective, isn't it.

First, thanks for the message on my page. I appreciate it, and mean no disrespect at all. You suggest I misunderstand. Well, that may be the case. However, I prefer to see it not as me doing the misunderstanding, but someone else doing the misleading. When things are cleared up ON the RFA page, I am sure my misunderstanding will clear up as well. Slrubenstein

There is after all a template [1]. I assume people making requests follow the template. Thus, I refer to the template to make sense of requests. What kind of person would refuse to follow the template? ;) Slrubenstein

Titus Pomponius Atticus - dont forget to post it in Wikipedia:Copyright problems. muriel@pt 13:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A Message to my Fellow Candidate

Friend,
The Arbitration Committee elections are almost here. I humbly ask for your vote in this election cycle. I have been a user of Wikipedia for over a year. I was here before the Community Portal, categories, or <tt>{{stub}}</tt>. I know how Wikipedia operates, and I am prepared to do my part to deal with problematic accounts. I wish to cut out the bureaucracy that makes our website stagnate. We need solutions to our problems now. If you want an arbitrator who believes in action, frankness, honesty, and fairness in every case, I am your arbitrator. Thank you for your time. You are under no obligation to answer this message.

--Paid for by Mero. for ArbCom

Zoroaster article

So sorry if this is not good Wikipedia etiquette--I'm new to Wikipedia. I want to ask you a question, and I find no other way to contact you. I noticed in the article on Zarathustra, you reverted to the last non-anonymous edit, stating that you saw no improvement in the subsequent edits. I would like to rewrite the article, making it less wordy and less biased, and include some of the information that was lost in the reversion. I'm very interested in the historicity of Zarathustra and the evolution of Zoroastrianism after his death, and have spent considerable time researching. I'm curious to know more about why you reverted the article. I know that my work will be edited, but I would like to avoid things that will stand out in the community as unacceptable practice, thus avoiding edits or reversions due to non-content issues. Thanks.

--dave c

Re:proposal

Reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Proposal. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Notability of Ancients who Die

I just noticed on the history of the Recent Deaths page that you questioned the notability of,and briefly deleted,Emma Verona Johnston,the oldest person in the United States.She was also the second-oldest person in the world.While a supercentenarian researcher,I can see the reason to question the inclusion on that page of Virginia Muise or the woman someone wrote an article on as Eleanor Plant (she was better known by her middle name Maebelle),who both died at 111 and were only the oldest in particular parts of the United States,as the world's ancients go Mrs. Johnston was particularly notable.So why did you pick on her,one of the all-time 40 oldest documented,but not on the two others who never reached the top 250?--Louis E./le@put.com/ 12.144.5.2 22:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The original listing just said she was the oldest person in a particular country. Since there are around 200 countries and the oldest person in each of those countries changes frequently, this person did not seem notable to me. Essentially, the addition as it was worded when I removed it did not establish any notability. Of course, you have now offered justification. If it had said she was one of the 40 all-time oldest documented persons, I would have left it alone. jguk 22:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Date formats

Interesting. I never noticed that. I'm still debating internally if that preference is a good idea or not. On the one hand it makes sense, on the other, because it's not a default, most people will see lots of inconsistencies throughout and within articles because of it. (I'm a consistency nut on this site, by the way.) RADICALBENDER ★ 15:57, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I've responded to your comment at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article and would request that you look at how important references are to Wikipedia in general, and especially to Wikipedia's best articles. As I mentioned, you are of course entitled to your vote no matter what, but would ask that you make an informed one. - Taxman 18:11, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Disagreements concerning style guide, etc.

Your comments have some merit. I am at least open to parts of your proposal.

For an indefinite period, I am willing to suspend my editing of the style guide. I am not willing to cease commenting on the talk page or about the style guide in general. But I will suggest that perhaps we consider the disputed style guide matters to be suspended at least until one of notifies the other, and that either of us place such a notice on the talk page. Please let me know your thoughts on that point.

I will post some comments at User talk:Jguk/Maurreen and jguk. I am willing to give that a serious effort. Everything that you said in your recent post on my talk page has merit.

But I acknowledge that my patience is low in this matter. I fear that our disagreement has progressed too far, and my frustration is too high, for us to resolve this amicably just between ourselves. Maurreen 19:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC

I have filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment about your behavior. Maurreen 09:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Patricia Cornwell and Sickert

Hi. Would you mind taking a look at the talk:Patricia Cornwell page, thank you. IVoteTurkey 12:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Baseball/cricket

I have tried restoring my general comparison between cricket and baseball in a clearer way. When I first started watching cricket the first thing that struck me about it is that it's all about batting while baseball is all about fielding, and that the reason is that cricketers bat with a two-by-four (or four-and-a-quarter) while baseball players field with a thing like a bushel basket on their hands.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to ignore the existence of specialist fielding positions, but simply to point out that cricket places fewer fielding demands on players and more batting demands. I speak as someone who once saw Intikhab Alam let a slow roller go between his legs. People laughed. Bill Buckner did that (on a quicker ball) and has lived in infamy ever since.

My current solution may still be inadequate but I do think the point should be made somehow. Bleeder 20:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine.

As you asked oh so nicely, sure. Honestly, it's at moments like this one when I'm feeling especially depressed and especially attacked I feel like leaving this site.

Have a nice day. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've speedily deleted the RFC. Hope your happy now that Pename is free to keep making personal attacks, even though people made a mistake in the signing. Now we'll never get anything reasonable on Jihad or Template:Timeline of Islamist militancy. And I'll keep getting attacked, via anonymous IP addresses no less. But like I've already said, have a nice night/day. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the snippy and unkind comments. I'm going through a massive period of depression that's lasted at least 6 months and it's not getting any better. I've been using Wikipedia as a constructive distraction now for that period, hence the reason I have so many edits. My depression hasn't been caused by Wikipedia but by real life. But I've got to take a timeout because now my depression is beginning to effect the way I edit/admin this site. I don't want to stuff it up for everyone, so I've blanked my talk page and place a note saying that I'll be off the air for a while. Which I will be until I've worked out some of the major problems in my life.

I really appreciate your patience with me over this one. It's rare to find someone who doesn't react to unkindness in a similar way! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just saw the message on my user page. Mate, I appreciate the encouragement :) your comments mean a lot to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 20:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yoo Young-Chul

You can include the news about him in Template:In_the_news once you have written an article about him. Cheers. – Kaihsu 23:18, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

CheeseDreams and Historicity of Jesus

Firstly, thanks for kind comments on my user page. They were totally appreciated... I'm in a much better state now so I'll be reverting back. It's good to know that people are very kind on this site though :-)

Anyway, back to the point (I've posted this to WP:AN): Can I please get advise on how to deal with the extensive changes that CheeseDreams is making on this article? She's running roughshod over everyone on an extremely controversial article. It's already been stuffed up due to this user's edits and had to be protected by RickK (in it's highly POV and badly structured form: at one point there were essentially TWO articles on the one page). Now CheeseDreams is making a massive change without using the talk page, and it adding sections that don't even have any content in it! I've reverted back and have requested that she bring her changes to the talk page. I would appreciate advise on how to procede with this, I don't particularly want to engage in an edit war with her. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Current Events removal

Hi there. Let's talk out the issue before we delete that item from Current Events outright, ok? I have seen your work and I value your ability to make a convincing argument, and would like to come to agreement and avoid any edit back-and-forth. Sound good? -- RyanFreisling @ 20:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cricket

Hi, thanks for your cricket invitation, I'll be online after Christmas. --- Nichalp

DreamGuy RFC

Have responded on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy. Hope that clarifies. I will tolerate pretty well anything, because, frankly, life's too short. But when someone questions my integrity they step over a line and I will not hesitate to make it 'official'. Icundell 20:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not a problem. I fully appreciate the need to go by the book. As I suspect you realise, I don't really care one or or the other what happens to DreamGuy. I've been around the internet far too long to be bothered by keyboard warriors (and probably far too long, full stop (or is that period?)). All I want is fair play for User:IVoteTurkey, who in our sole other exchange, (see the Christmas discussion at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board) behaved with utmost courtesy. I would also like to see Walter Sickert cleaned up (take a look and see if you think it is a fair and balanced (dare I say it, NPOV) account of him), but that's a side issue. Icundell 20:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

redirecting page

I know you have a pending name change request, but it's confusing if you are actively editing under User talk:Jongarrettuk, yet redirecting your user pages to User talk:Jguk.

Also, please do not mark RFCs as speedy deletion. The "defendants" have agreed to retain them as evidence, and that is their right. -- Netoholic @ 21:19, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Actually, it's not - the current policy is that the page is deleted (though I myself have proposed the policy you suggest). Maybe the complainant and other contributors to the page would like it deleted (which is their right). Anyway, I'll let them take up that case. jguk 12:21, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username "5. Start editing from the new account. Once your request is dealt with, all edits from your old account will be reattributed to your new account.".

It really is disruptive to redirect your user page, and I hope you'll respond. Until you begin editing as "jguk", I'd suggest keeping this "soft" redirect. -- Netoholic @ 04:23, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

My point is that if you keep editing under your old name, when will the developer know when its safe to move you? You should follow the advice on that page, and start editing under your new name. And yes, that may mean having to rebuild your watchlist in the meantime. At least start migrating over, perhaps... check your old account for watchlist changes, but start doing edits under the new name. You could open your watchlist in one tab/window, then log out/in from another. -- Netoholic @ 09:33, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I'll think about it. If you can think of any way for me to easily transfer my watchlist, it would be appreciated. jguk 12:21, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User Page Layout

Hi, Jon.

Your user page doesn't display properly in Firefox 1.0 under the Cologne Blue skin. The "Royal Palace at Tétouan, Morocco" image is superimposed over the TOC.

chocolateboy 14:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Do you know how I can solve the problem? As long as you don't delete anything, feel free to have a go yourself. jguk 14:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep. That seems to have done the trick!

chocolateboy 14:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2001

Hi, I know this kind of list can be very emotive, but as I don't see anything on the talk page except a copyright violation dispute which has been resolved, I wonder if you explain why you have added the page to Requests for Comment. I found your entry there and visited the page. It's just a list of children's names and causes of death. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You've got the wrong person there. Nothing to do with me. It was added by an anonymous user [2]. Kind regards, jguk 16:21, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Duh! Sorry. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:39, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Current Events

I agree that the Ohio lawsuit isn't important enough to warrant placement on the currents events page at this time. I have removed it. Obviously, my opinion could change at a later time if the lawsuit progresses and has any chance of affecting the outcome. Cheers! Carrp 21:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please stop putting information in an article that you do not know to be true and that others tell you is false.

That is disturbing behavior.

(Moss v. Bush)

Read the article and the court filings. Learn about something before you attempt to teach it. Kevin Baas | talk 22:02, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

You might care to note that the reference to what the Kerry campaign said that I added was direct from one of the references you added yourself into the article. Kind regards, jguk 22:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are confused. That reference does not refer to Moss vs. Bush. Kerry is not involved in that lawsuit, and is unlikely to be as familiar with the relevant laws and procedures as the lawyers persuing the case. Kevin Baas | talk 22:12, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I have now added comments to Talk:Moss v. Bush, which make clear the legal basis for the first bit of what I wrote. In relation to the second bit, I considered it relevant in the same way as the source you quoted (which was the American ABC). You may disagree with me (and them) as to its relevance, as is your right, but that does not make it wholly unreasonable to mention it. After all, the plaintiffs are arguing for a declaration that Kerry should have won the Ohio votes (not that any such declaration would have any legal effect). I consider a comment on Kerry's current views of the few remaining Ohio disputes to not be out of place. jguk 23:06, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's jsut talk about this on the Talk:Moss v. Bush from now on, but I'll reply briefly regarding kerry, here.

I do not dispute the relevancy of Kerry's views. I do not dispute that it would not be out of place to discuss them in the article.

I do dispute the context in which they have been placed in the article. The context is not about kerry or other views, it is about the basis and innate legitimacy of the suit, which kerry's views are external to.

If you would like to put in a section on other people's views on the lawsuit, such as is the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy: "Official positions". And explain Kerry's views and position regarding Moss v. Bush in that section, then I would consider that a constructive and NPOV contribution. (provided, ofcourse, that it accurately and represents his position) Kevin Baas | talk 23:25, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

"Real world" disciplinary action and its relation to arbitrators

Actually, I was interested to learn the terms of Fred Bauder's suspension from practicing law, which you brought up on his talk page. I would be disinclined to pick such a person as arbitrator, but his activity of Wikipedia has been reasonable. As long as this remains true, I see no reason to request that he step down. On CheeseDreams case however, I think recusal would be appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 08:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A different opinion

jguk, I respectfully ask that you think twice about your "background investigation" of Fred Bauder. Your investigation could have an extremely corrosive effect on Wikipedia.

I choose to edit using my real name, but many others do not, as they view their personal life to be off-limits from other Wikipedians. I believe that so many other Wikipedian's choose to edit anonymously partially out of fear of being subject to what you are doing to Fred Bauder.

Imagine if you were successful in driving anyone off of Wikipedia by using personal details about that user's life obtained from outside of Wikipedia?

The corrosive effect of creating an environment in which it is more prudent to edit anonymously would set back the idea that the Wikipedia community is a free and open place in which anyone can contribute.

I for one would like to see more people using their actual names. Editors will work with each other in a more professional manner if they view each other as real people rather than as abstract screen names.

If more people used their real names, perhaps there would be fewer personal attacks and more energy spent on finding creative ways to resolve our differences.

I still have a lot to learn to be a good Wikipedia contributor, so I am grateful for the people on Wikipedia who use their real names. Those editors have made a greater impact on me, to better help me improve how I conduct myself, and teaching me new ways to think about solving differences.

On a number of occassions, various more senior editors have privately e-mailed me to take me aside and counsel me how to better handle a situation when they believe I am off the tracks.

All of this is at risk if you make it seem like a bad idea to edit using one's actual identity on Wikipedia.

I'm not an Administrator. I'm not telling you what to do. But there is an important principle at stake in this case, which I hope you will consider.

Just my two cents,

— DV 10:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am taking this slowly - and note that in this case the person involved actually asked for a background check, as you call it, to be made. There can be no complaints that that request was followed. Had I wanted to irresponsibly plastered it all over Wikipedia by now, I would have done - but that would have been inappropriate. I raised it in non-sensationalist tones on that user's talk page to invite comment from him. I also note that the circumstances here are different (as I have previously noted) and do not apply to most Wikipedians, so do not have general read-across. jguk 11:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)