User talk:Arcturus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have two black metal bands in your profile unintentionally--ulver and arcturus. Just thought i'd let you know

Hi. I'm not sure what you're asking about disambiguation. RickK 04:45, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think you're dong it backwards. You're writing it as [[John Waters|John Waters (filmmaker)]], and it should be [[John Waters (filmmaker)|John Waters]]. RickK 22:18, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Article Licensing 2 Thanks 2.1 ip block 2.2 Ingleby Barwick 3 Mike Follin 4 Color spectrum 5 Jesus 6 Minor edits 7 Incorrect usage of AD in Palladas 8 Lloyd Morgan 9 Counties 10 Denounce 11 Your refreshingly sensible comments 12 Baekje 13 Counties, etc.: A suggestion for consensus 14 1970s 15 Bagoas 16 Copyright question 17 Lester Rodney comments 18 Date links 19 Chore Boy 20 West Coast Mines 21 3RR 22 Indigo 23 lakes template 24 Drumcree 25 Wikipedia_talk:Censorship 26 Novaya Zemlya 27 New tag 28 re:Table of Dates in Sacred Heart 29 The Dagda's Cauldron 30 The Sash 31 Lancashire 32 BCE vs BC 33 Laas Gaa'l 34 İzmir 35 British Isles 36 Doogle 37 Regarding edits made during October 21, 2006 to Middlesbrough 38 AFd 39 WPCD 40 Ireland edits 41 Your contribution to the discussion on Talk:Ireland 42 Bryan Budd page: protect against possible fraud 43 Reply 44 Ireland 45 WP:CIVIL 46 Irish Flag 47 UK infobox templates 48 Possibly unfree Image:ACGrayling.PNG

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Thanks

...for your help on John Gregson page. WikiUser 21:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ip block

I can't do anything about this. There is a system at the moment where the following happens: 1) I block the name 2) an autoblock appears on the IP next time someone tries to use it to log in (the idea was to prevent socks)

Now I can undo the auto block but I have to wait until someone logs in from that IP and in this case no one did so before I went to bed. Soory about the email I have been meaning to sort that out for a whileGeni 18:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ingleby Barwick

On some old maps I have it shows Ingleby Barwick as being a housing estate in the town of Thornaby. Although it as now grown in size, the council have not made it a town in its own right, so therefore it is still part of the town of Thornaby (although it is often disconnected with regards to signs etc...)

[edit] Mike Follin

Just out of curiousity, why did you flag the Mike Follin article as candidate for speedy deletion? // Liftarn

[edit] Color spectrum

Did you remember the edit you made in Talk:Color about how the color list of the spectrum should be made?? I modified the color article slightly with a new heading "Important note!" to clarify it. Georgia guy 14:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

Thanks for the heads up, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• re CE/AD, see: Talk:Jesus#Common Era v. Anno Domini--JimWae 03:02, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

Please be careful about marking edits as minor which are not minor. See Wikipedia:Minor edit for a definition; even adding a single word can be regarded as not minor. Thanks. —Lowellian (talk) 10:12, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. American Century [1]. —Lowellian (talk) 10:51, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Please see this: [2] a discussion about reducing the length of Slrubenstein's block for breaking the 3RR on Jesus.--Silversmith 23:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect usage of AD in Palladas

I don't understand your reasoning for changing "4th century AD" to "4th century". When used with a year, the era is placed before; when used with centuries, the era comes after. And while the Manual of Style says nothing about using AD, it does not explicitly forbid its use -- which I had added to remove ambiguity over the time Palladas lived. -- llywrch 03:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you're being no more pedantic than I am about the usage, & your point is a good one, & is why AD precedes the year. However, AD follows the century because of established practice -- it's what my copy of the MLA Handbook proscribes, & every other Manual of Style (that I remember) that addresses this usage proscribes. Do you have a counterexample? -- llywrch 19:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lloyd Morgan

sorry, I accidentally wiped some edits you'd put in on C. Lloyd Morgan (an effect of the new edit conflict bug). I think I have reinstated them, but you may want to have a look. seglea 28 June 2005 22:00 (UTC)

[edit] Counties

Hello Arcturus. There is some debate over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography (also spilling over into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)) about what strikes me as the rather odd way Wikipedia currently arranges its county articles. While there will always be disagreements over the status of the traditional counties I think there is a case to be made on both sides of that old argument that our attempt at a compromise has been botched and is leading to all kinds of problems, and that we should think about taking a fresh look at our arrangements. I wonder if you'd take a look and perhaps add your comments if you have a view on the matter. Thanks. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 12:21 (UTC)

[edit] Denounce

You placed a speedy tag on this article, but apparently did not read the talk page first. Had you done so, you would have learned that the article had been transwikied to Wiktionary. A boilerplate message states: "The final disposition of the article on Wikipedia has not yet been determined. It may be redirected, it may go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, or it may evolve beyond a dictionary definition and remain on the Wikipedia. If none of these tasks have been performed, please do so." As you can see, speedy deletion is not suggested as an option. I'll haul it off to VfD for you. Denni☯ 22:35, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

[edit] Your refreshingly sensible comments

Hello; I just wanted to commend you for providing some much-need common sense on the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places) page. Please don't be intimidated by huffing and puffing of one or two people who may hold a different view. I think that, with the recent revival of this discussion, and the greatly increased support for using a common-sense option (traditional counties) rather than the currently-prescribed administrative-cum-ceremonial mess since the last poll, reversing the current policy and imposing a better one is a realistic goal. I was thinking about proposing a new set of choices for voting shortly myself; you are more than welcome to contact me with a view to discussing the best way of doing this if you wish. Keep up the good work! Best regards, 80.255 00:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baekje

I didn't really see them as controversial here (and, in fact, they aroused no controversy in what was an otherwise extremely controversial article). The MoS on this issue has been in a state of almost continuous flux since before I started editing here, and I've not kept up with its latest wording I'm afraid. My impression was that the style adopted in the article was a matter for editors in consensus.

It's true that my personal opinion is that the BCE/CE usage should be adopted by Wikipedia as the norm; it is in widespread use – almost 100% in academic texts, and in a high proportion of semi-academic and serious non-fiction, especially those concerned with matters of culture and, even more especially, of religions – and is preferable on theoretical (including NPoV) grounds. In this case, however, I was thinking only of the individual article — on a non-Christian place with non-Christian history, edited by mainly non-Christian editors who all seemed happy with the change. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Counties, etc.: A suggestion for consensus

Hello, as you were involved in the naming convention discussion a little while ago, I though you might like to know that I've posted a suggestion that should help resolve this dispute at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)#Suggestion for consensus. Please have a look. Thanks, 80.255 18:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1970s

Hi Arcturus, just wanted to let you know that I've just seen that my revert of your edit to 1970s was a mistake: for some reason I read your initial edit as removing the reference to the West as well as to the US. The Western bit needed to stay, but as you rightly state, the US certainly didn't. --Lancevortex 16:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bagoas

Summarizing an edit that changed "BCE" to "BC", you wrote:

• Date format - standard for this article is BC

I don't know what you mean by "standard for this article". Can you explain? Thanks, -Willmcw 22:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. -Willmcw 22:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright question

Hi there, Arcturus. We have a discussion going on here about a page you had some involvement with in July. The page was Lester Rodney, containing an article written by an anon. You listed it on the copyvio page and it was eventually deleted, although there is some question over whether a proper determination was actually made that this indeed was a copyvio. Do you think you could join the VfU discussion linked above? Kind regards—encephalonέγκέφαλος  17:43:25, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

Thank you, Arcturus. I've also responded on my Talk page.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  11:55:08, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

[edit] Lester Rodney comments

Hi, Arcturus. I don't know how to get involved in the discussion in the "undeletion" section, so I clicked on your name and am making comments on your page. I don't use your site much, but a few months ago, Lester Rodney directed me to a definition of the Daily Worker that included a hyperlink to his name, but no information. Since my master's thesis was on the Daily Worker's campaign to end segregated baseball, which then spurred some other research on Lester Rodney and the Daily Worker, he suggested that he and I put together an entry on your site to serve as his dictionary entry/biography. I don't know why it seems strange to you all that someone would want an authorized biography on your site, it is a practice in putting one together for both myself -- a history doctoral student -- and Lester. I have also written biographies that appear in the Dictionary of Literary Biography, volume 241 (Joe Bostic and Dan Burley -- and I am quoted as a source for the Lester Rodney piece in the same volume -- I did not have time to do 3, so I did the two I had not done before and let Mr. Klein do Lester, and I cited his biography in my Wikipedia piece). Lester likes getting the word out about his work on trying to desegregate baseball and against racism in general, and even though he is in his 90s he likes to take advantage of technology, so that is why it was important to him to have his bio done online. I want to stress that his name was hypertexted in the Daily Worker article, and if you all did not intend for there to be an entry on him, then why the hypertext??? It is important to me because, as a doctoral student, the more places my work appears, the better. I stated in an email to Andrew Gray that I obtained the proper rights to reprint or republish anything I have written on Lester from M.E. Sharpe, my original publisher, as well as from sportsjones.com, my original online publisher, but did not "lift" any of the information word-for-word from any of my other work. I mean, if what you all are accusing me of is plagarizing myself, the U.S. Supreme Court has already handled that issue, you can't plagarize yourself. I don't understand what all the brou-ha-ha is about this issue -- and no one will explain it to me personally. I write about Lester Rodney. I have written about him in the past. I have a vast storehouse of personal knowledge about him, and I know him personally. I wrote about him for your site because you had a hypertext of his name and no definition. I ended my article with citations towards other works written about Lester Rodney, by myself, my co-author (Chris Lamb), and others, including Irwin Silber and Robert Klein, who both cite me in their works on him. What is so hard to understand about that?? I think that this is making mountains out of molehills. All Lester wanted was to see a short bio on himself online -- and he and I worked on that. Why are you all so upset about it??? Sincerely, Kelly E. Rusinack 67.142.130.21 19:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date links

I wholeheartedly approve of edit summary on September 11: "Linked date at top of page - all dates should be linked". If you have a moment, and the inclination, please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year#Linking dates in lead paragraphs, maybe even share a comment. Thanks. –Hajor 15:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chore Boy

Hello, I noticed that you created the Chore Boy page on May 14, 2005. I was curious if that brand is notable above other brands for any particular reason. Please let me know on my talk page; I feel that the article is a good candidate for deletion. Thanks! --mdd4696 00:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West Coast Mines

Could you let me know why? I'm having problems with someone stuffing up a disambig page in a similar manner, is there any reason why - as it becomes more difficult to read! SatuSuro 23:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC) So are you saying it is better to have headings (which create their own lines) ? SatuSuro 23:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC) I think I have answered my own question - put some headings in - and it has sorted the issue - thanks for your pointer to an improper use of lines! I shall reform post haste - I do have a few other west coast tassie articles that need checking. SatuSuro 00:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Was it a random check, or do you have interest in tassie at all? SatuSuro 00:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Me too! - at one stage I was doing 10 to 20 'catneeded' from random pages at a sitting!however I am in process of selling and moving from family home of 40 years here in Darlington western australia, and am considering buying a house on west coast tassie - I used to work at Mount Lyell in queenstown. Ulverstone on the north coast, it's a nice place! Oh well here in perth, time for breakfast! cheers SatuSuro 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Don't forget about 3RR on human. Just a friendly warning, don't want to see you get blocked over small style point.--Tznkai 20:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indigo

Please wait until a large enough discussion among enough Wikipedians has come before putting indigo back in. You are one of only 3 Wikipedians to have the discussion as of this moment. Georgia guy 23:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lakes template

Yeah I realise Tarn Hows doesnt fit in with the others so well, however it does have an article so thought i'd put it on to make it easier to access. What do you think? Thanks for adding the other two. Suicidalhamster 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a good plan. Thanks Suicidalhamster 20:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Just left you a 3 note(s) in Talk:Square Metre, which I believe your complaint led me to. Well, I tried to help (1), then that was wasted (2), so now I'm wasted, but shoulda ratha had a drink to get this way. Instead I spotted a glitch (3), I'm in no shape to fix tonight. So Have fun with your squares. At least Facts&MoreFacts is out of your hair. (numbers are chronological 'saves' of the talk). Best regards, FrankB 05:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drumcree

The contested march at Drumcree is to and from a service in the Church to commemorate the Battle of the Somme. That is what I assumed that reference was about.Traditional unionist 13:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 11:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novaya Zemlya

Hi, Arcturus! I mean no offense, but it seems you are not really familiar with the guideline you've just put under my nose at Novaya Zemlya. In general, and as a friendly tip, please always provide a link to the guideline you are quoting, even if you are sure your opponent knows where it is at perfectly well.

Anyway, I believe the guideline you were referring to is WP:MOS. However, if you would refer to this particular section, you would see that the geographic location of any article's subject has nothing to do with what spelling is used in that article, as long as the subject is not strictly British/American/Australian/Canadian-specific. The only other good reason to correct spellings is when an article uses different spellings interchangeably for no apparently good reason (usually when several editors with different spelling preferences edited the article without paying much attention to spelling consistency). Even then, the change should be not to the spelling you prefer, but to the spelling used by the first major contributor (as per MoS). Reviewing the article's history, one can see that the first major contributor, Andre Engels, used American spelling when he started the article in 2002 (see paragraph 2 of his initial contribution: 1070 meters). Hence, as per MoS, the article is to retain American spelling from then on indefinitely, unless the United Kingdom annexes Novaya Zemlya, at which time the spellings will have to be changed :)

I'm sorry if I sounded snarky—I tried my best not to. I hope I was able to explain what the guideline is really about. I would appreciate if you could revert your change back to the policy-compliant version. Please don't hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New tag

I removed a delete tag you placed because it was obsolete.I replaced it with the appropriate tag {{db-bio}}Geo. 21:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:Table of Dates in Sacred Heart

First of all, I was using the format found in the Easter article, which also has columns for east and west. The reason why I feel a table is superior is because a) it saves space because you can float the table to the side, b) it isn't content per se so I don't feel bad seperating it out, and c) it is tabular data, so the most logical place to code it is in a table. I moved the earliest and latest dates to the actual article about the feast. That information is trivia, and the article in question was Sacred Heart, not Feast of the Sacred Heart, so I felt this trivial content would be more at home at the proper article. Actually I just thought of something as well... I think the table and dates should be moved to the proper "Feast..." article. We don't have the Easter dates table on the Crucifix or Easter egg page, and we don't have the dates for the Feast of the Cross listed on the Cross page. As long as we have a wikilink to the Feast of the Cross and a brief summary on the Sacred Heart page, there is no reason why we can't expand the feast page instead of making content redundent. hmm... maybe we should take this to the article talk?--Andrew c 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dagda's Cauldron

Hi, What sort of cleanup were you thinking of for this article? Dlyons493 Talk 22:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - it was an article I never meant to write, hence the slighly odd format. I've restructured it now. Dlyons493 Talk 23:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sash

The Sash was proven in a court of law in Scotland not to be sectarian, so I don't really think there should be any allusions to this in the article, or at least not so strongly worded ones. Cheers. Archibald99 15:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lancashire

Hi, I'm just wondering what "the Real Lancashire" is compared to the Lancashire we know and love? Thanks Martinp23 23:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah - before my time I'm afraid! However, I was aware that Southport (where I was born) used to be part of Lancs. Perhaps you could link the "real lancashire" part of your user box to the Friends of Real Lancashire, to make it clear. Just an idea ;) Martinp23 20:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BCE vs BC

Wasn't aware of the MOS on this issue, thanks for informing me. Regards -- Samir धर्म 23:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laas Gaa'l

Hi -- The Laas Gaa'l article contains material that is in both of its two sources, which is why I put in two copyvio tags. It looks to me like the world66 wiki is a copyvio of the BBC site in one place, and in another place the WP article is plagiarizing material directly from the BBC site that doesn't appear on the world66 site (see the article's talk page). I've reinserted the copyvio tag referring to the BBC site.--24.52.254.62 20:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi -- I think it would be helpful to have some more outside involvement in this. It's a clear case of copyvio, both in the text and in the photo, but Abdullah Geelah is continuing to delete the copyvio tags.--24.52.254.62 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] İzmir

I think "BC" is disrespectful to Muslims and Jews... :( Just because the original editor had it this way means that it can't be changed? —Khoikhoi 21:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It clearly stands for Before Christ, a figure that is of no importance to Muslims. Note that most Turks are Muslims (or secular). I don't really care, anyways. Have it your way. —Khoikhoi 22:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles

Situation is that the term British Isles is confusing. It says so on the BI page, so it's not only me on this issue. The term "British Isles" is not universally accepted, and is seldom used by people in Ireland, and even the British Government and the BBC try not the use the term. So if it's good enough for all those 3 to avoid the term, then it's good enough for WP to avoid the term too. I am not questioning the existance of the term, just the usage.MelForbes 22:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doogle

Your Doogle article as written clearly failed WP:CSD Article criteria #7: it fails to assert notability. If you plan to recreate the article, please ensure it meets the required criteria by clearly citing reliable sources that show why it is notable. Thanks, Gwernol 23:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but we have a very clear mandate from the office to ensure that these kinds of articles are removed as quickly as possible. Out of respect I've prodded it, so there is 5 days to improve the article before its deleted, but honestly it should be speedied again. Good luck, Gwernol 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits made during October 21, 2006 to Middlesbrough

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nishkid64 21:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Admins make mistakes, deal with it. Nishkid64 21:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFd

Your afd entry is formatted wrong and is interfering with the afd above it. It makes it seem like you voted to delete the Colbert Report entry when you are voting to delete the other article. Gdo01 20:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You seemed to have found your error before I posted this. Anyway you're welcome. Gdo01 20:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WPCD

Thank you for the warning on a couple of articles. Are there historical versions which in your opinion were NPOV which could be used on the CD (we had to do this with a couple of the major religions last time around)? If so tell me (and we will look at them and see if we agree) if not we can leave them off altogether. Thanks again --BozMo talk 18:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But please don't worry about the italicised stuff at the beginning of the articles, that gets automatically taken out by the script. If it doesn't get anywhere we will drop the articles anyway. --BozMo talk 22:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland edits

I restored most of your NPOV edits to Ireland after they were improperly reverted by the anonymous editor. The edits I did not restore shouldn't come as a surprise. Dppowell 15:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your contribution to the discussion on Talk:Ireland

I don't appreciate being included under the label of 'censor' or 'bigot', especially given the Republican arrows that have been slung at me while I've attempted to foment a long-overdue civil discussion on the issue. I'm sorry you're upset that your version of the article didn't pass muster, but I would appreciate you keeping your vitriol to yourself. Consider this a civility warning. Dppowell 18:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Lofty, Sony-Youth and I were the only named people in the discussion to that point, it's clear which of us you meant to paint with your broad brush. Try to forget the godforsaken British Isles article and its attendant edit wars for a few minutes and actually read the current Ireland discussion from the top down. We're trying to build a consensus. More voices would be nice, but so far the only other people ringing in are anonymous, name-calling trolls (exactly the sort that have wrecked any chance of real dialogue on British Isles). Help, or don't, but please don't bring any of that other article's poison over here. Dppowell 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Budd page: protect against possible fraud

I posted this on the talk page for the article, but am not sure if you're watching it or not, so thought I'd copy to you as you created the article. Cheers 81.157.197.111 12:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there some way of linking to a site about or that mentions the Trust Fund contact details rather than putting the address in the text? As it stands, it could easily be changed by unscrupulous fraudsters. Even if the page is watched (which I will), there's the possibility that the address could be changed and not noticed for a while. The Sun page [3] gives the address 81.157.197.111 12:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I apologize for the problem. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 02:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland

I'd like to say I think your support for removing the anti-Britishness on the Ireland article is admirable. Somethingoranother 21:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, but it will be a long haul. It was difficult at British Isles but good progress has been made. Arcturus 21:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIVIL

Please note that this policy applies to both sides in a discussion. Your comment here - which included "rant", "verging on the fanatical", and "who the hell are you" - doesn't move any discussion in a constructive direction. I strongly suggest that you be more careful in the future about how you word your comments when you're dealing with an editor whom you consider to be a problem. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 03:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, sure are a lot of policies. You might find this useful, although it's only an index.

As for your question of how I'd describe someone else's user page edit (or any edit, pretty much), my answer is that I'd avoid emotion-tinged words if at all possible. ("Vandalism" is a fact; that one I have no problems using.) I realize that this approach may sound like unilateral disarmament, but Wikipedia talk pages aren't like social scenes where failure to defend oneself verbally is seen as a weakness. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, then introducing emotions and personal attacks is, itself, an indication of lack of comprehension, and a simple "Please observe WP:CIVIL" (or WP:NPA or whatever) demonstrates (to some of us, anyway) an ability to focus on the task at hand, despite distractions.

As for the last edit that you mention, if you're talking about the reversion on Laurence's user page of the edit you did to it, I think the reversion was totally appropriate. WP:USER pretty much says that other editors aren't to touch the user page of another editor except in very specific circumstances.

Finally, thank you for revising your last post on Laurence's talk page, though in the best of worlds I think you'd delete it entirely. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Flag

Re. vectorized (.svg) version of your image, Here it is]. Let me know if the colours are okay - I used to Pantone official colours and referenced them to 8-bit colours. Sorry it took so long - I was moving house :) - Alison^✍ 22:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK infobox templates

There is currently a debate about replacing the existing UK place infoboxes with a unified one. I generally support this proposal but there is an attempt to remove the historic county information that a lot of people worked on and where a consensus was reached. I would appreciate your input into this. Thanks. Owain (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the discussion is at Template talk:Infobox GB place#Straw polls Owain (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:ACGrayling.PNG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:ACGrayling.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)