User talk:Jnestorius
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Association Football
Hi.
I had been making the same point as you about the officialness of "association football" as a name some time ago so I wrote to the FA in October of last year regarding their official position of whether the name of the sport is officially "football" or "association football" Here is their reply.
Hi xxxxxx,
Our official publication on the laws of the sport, updated every June, is called "Laws of Association Football". On that basis it could be said that "Association Football" is the official name of the sport.
However, I don't think there is any dispute that, in common parlance, we call it merely "football". There is a distinction now between "football" and "rugby" to follow a previous distinction between "Association Football" or "the Association game" and "Rugby Football" or "the Rugby game".
Interestingly, you allude to the fact that the sport's original rules or laws were not expressly "for Association Football" or "for the Association game", i.e. not expressly within those rules or laws. I believe they were understood as rules or laws for that form of football - bearing in mind that there were many forms before 1863 - which the new "Football Association" had created. So it was "Association Football" in the sense of "Association's Football".
"Association" quickly abbreviated to "soccer" (or "socker") in public school slang but the term is, in my experience, rarely seen or heard now. Not in this country, anyway.
So where does that leave us? Well, Rule 1 of the "Rules of The (Football) Association" includes the line: "All Clubs and Affiliated Associations shall play and/or administer football in conformity with these Rules and also (a) the Laws of the Game and (b) the Statutes and Regulations of FIFA and UEFA".
We call it "football" but its official name is "Association Football".
Regards,
David Barber Library The Football Association
[edit] All things Irish
Hi there!
A very belated welcome to Wikipedia!
I notice you've edited some Irish topic articles. If you are interested, there's a Irish wikipedians' notice board. Feel free to call over and take a look, or drop a note!
Regards, zoney ▓ ▒ talk 09:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] 1910
Thanks for annotating the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia from the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article. I suppose it isn't odd that a 95-year old article would be a decent source about regarding a state that was defunct 85 years ago. Even so, the age should be noted. Thanks for correcting that. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:09, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reduplication
Thanks for fixing my flub up on reduplication. That's what I get for not reading my own writing. D'oh. Nohat 09:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] ME horses
Give me ten minutes :) Radiant_* 08:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "POV" edits to IRA
Compare your reverted version to mine and see how much of the material you actually removed is "point of view", or fact. Are two extra significant events in 1986 and 1987 my point of view, or are they fact? Is the Warringtom MO my point of view, or fact? Is nearly 20,000 injured my point of view or fact?
Do you contest the IRA targeted civilians? Do you contest they seek a united Ireland based on Marxist principles? Did they not attempt to kill the Cabinet twice and murder several MPs? Is the support from US Senators and Congressmen my invention? Is Belfast in Ireland or Northern Ireland? Are the Loughall and Gibraltar events figments of my imagination? You clearly dislike any reference to the IRA targeting innocent civilians, which is a fact: what is the reason for this?
A thing I've noticed on Wiki is that people edit things they do not like or do not agree with, and either give no reason - or one that is totally irrelevant or not appropriate. If you are going to delete entries because you do not accept them as fact, it's best to read them first and be in posession of the facts yourself. Almost none of what you deleted is POV, and none are factually incorrect. Ironically, your claim that the facts I added are my point of view is just your point of view. And your point of view is not supported by history.
So the IRA is not a terrorist organisation. That's news to the rest of the free world.
- Indeed there was a fair amount of substantive fact in your edit, and I would welcome the reinsertion of that into the article. However, this was intermingled with POV elements. Rather than require other editors to disentangle the good-quality material in your edit from the POV portion, I would respectfully ask you to try to do this yourself before resubmitting it. Some examples of what I mean:
- 20,000 civilians killed or injured certainly deserves mention, but you mentioned it twice. This does not reinforce the point, it smacks of argumentativeness, as does repetition of the phrase "innocent civilians".
- "Terrorist" is one of the Wikipedia:Words to avoid. The article is already in Category:Terrorist organizations in Northern Ireland and there is a long footnote discussing who uses the word "Terrorist" to describe it. The bald use of the word in the opening sentence is inconsistent with this.
- Changing [Ireland] to [Northern Ireland] is useful as it is less ambiguous and more specific. Changing [Ireland] to [Northern Ireland, UK] is intrusive. People who don't know already where Northern Ireland is will hardly have read that far. Changing [England] to [England, UK] is pointless. [Gibraltar, UK] is factually incorrect.
- Phrasing such as "Again, Sinn Fein/IRA cry foul", "allowed their innocent countrymen to suffer the ordeal of wrongful conviction and imprisenment", "an event largely forgotten by history" "lesser known or publicised" are editorialising. State the facts: they can speak for themselves.
- "The evidence in support of the accusation is huge, though a more likely reason for the activity is diversification" this statement seems to contradict itself.
- Misspellings (TRepublicans, the Kennedy's, imprisenment) are always intrusive. In the context of a substantial edit, many Wikipedians will see them as evidence that a contribution was written in haste.
- I hope you don't find my comments insulting. I believe the Northern Ireland material in Wikipedia does tend to reflect Irish Nationalist bias of editors more than Unionist bias. Any editors able to remedy this are very welcome. Joestynes 10:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I apologise for my angry post: I am senstive about this subject because my brother was a soldier killed by the IRA (by a man now a Sinn Fein councillor).
I accept your opinions on this matter. Thank you for your reasoned and helpful reply.
Jay K
- Thanks for replying, and for your recent edit to PIRA. Joestynes 09:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Flag of Ireland
The edit you mention wasn't a mistake though it probably should have come with some kind of explanation and I don't know why I flagged it as minor. Please take my word for it that it wasn't intended as a sneaky edit. People generally don't get away with those anyway. I suppose it's a slightly daft thing to be have disagreement about but I've just put my side on Talk:Flag of Ireland. Iota 18:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] UK not a country
Hi, just wanted to quickly apologise for my edit yesterday. I've used plenty of other wikis but this was my first wikipedia edit and I didn't know to check the discussions. I also wasn't aware of the sock-puppet problem (I've created a profile now). I'll try to explain my point in the discussion when I get a chance. Regards, Neil
[edit] "Permitted"
Yes, I did know, but I didn't notice the spelling error when I selected the suggestions to use for the update. Thanks for pointing it out, I've corrected it now. - Mgm|(talk) July 4, 2005 08:40 (UTC)
[edit] Chancing your arm
I thought I saw it in St Patricks - not ChristChurch --ClemMcGann 22:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Category:English football clubs
Even though the stub category is a sub-cat of this category, the category should still be listed separately. That's always the way with stub notices and categories, they are independent of each other. Stub categories aren't "real" categories as such, they're kind of temporary categories - it's assumed that every article will be expanded beyond stub length eventually. And it doesn't make any sense to split up the main category in two just because some are stubs. sjorford #£@%&$?! 13:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting. I don't know that I agree with that policy, but I guess I'll live with it. Is there a Wikipedia: page explaining it? Joestynes 13:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Craic
Nice edit. Keep up the good work! Blackcap (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Your proposed merge of neoliberalism
Hi! I responded to your request to merge neoliberalism with liberal theory of economics here. Two different policies my friend! --sansvoix 05:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I noticed you merged the two different merger discussions (Neoliberalism->Liberal Theory, and Liberal Theory->Classical Liberalism) into one, and stitched in a two way vote as well. Perhaps it would be better to keep the two topics seperate, but on the same page? --Maybe have the votes after the discussions as well? It is confusing for me to read, and I'm familiar with the discussion! Thanks.--sansvoix 21:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Classic Rock
Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hemel Hempstead revert
Whoops, don't know how that happened - I could swear I just went in and edited that one line out. Oh well, thanks for catching it! sjorford (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Football chant & Cheering merge
Hi mate, I'd like to get something done on the Football chant article, it's been dragging on for a while now. I think the comments on the talk page show a consensus to keep the article, but it's obvious that those sections not related to football (soccer) don't belong there. Would you have any objections to me moving just those sections into the cheering article, but leaving the rest? I'm going to propose that on the talk page. Do you mind if I move the merge tag to reflect that proposal? - N (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1972 Five Nations Championship
Thanks for the correction to the two articles. As you seem to know rather more than I do about it, could you make similar corrections to the Ireland national rugby union team and Wales national rugby union team?GordyB 22:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I didn't know that much. England didn't play a friendly in 1972. Oh well. Corrected as requested. Joestynes 14:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] UK Olympic team?
Have you seen this?
--Mais oui! 22:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Star (football crest)
Pretty impressive work on the club list and some solid edits. Well done. Wiggy! 22:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wiki-linking from quotes discussion
Hi there. I've added a comment to the discussion here about Wiki-linking from quotes. As someone who has posted to this discussion, I'd appreciate any comments you might have. Thanks. Carcharoth 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have just read your comment at the deletion debate. I apologise if I annoyed you by leaving a message on your talk page. I thought it was OK to leave polite messages like this. The reason I do this is past experience I have had of posting comments and getting no response - it is difficult to tell if it is because no-one is watching, or if it is because people have read the comment but decided they had nothing to say, or it was not worth responding. I also tend to try and notify people if the discussion is very old and doesn't seem to have reached consensus. I will try to use my watchlist more and, will wait longer before doing this in the future. Apologies once again. Carcharoth 08:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Arbor
Thanks for the arbor clarification... I obviously warn't aware of the distinction ;-) one deriving from Anglo-French and the other directly from Latin. So arbor "tool" is one of those Renaissance Latin loans. Best, JackLumber, 19:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] YUG 1924?
Hey there. I searched through the edit history of List of IOC country codes and saw that you were the one who added the dates 1924 to 2000 for the historical code YUG.[1] I corrected this to 2002 as the country actually competed as Yugoslavia for the last time at the Salt Lake Winter Games (the name was only changed to Serbia and Montenegro the following year), but I can't find a source for the 1924 date. Another article, 1920 Summer Olympics, claims the previous Olympiad as the year of Yugoslavia's début. And, in any case, the country was only named Yugoslavia in 1929, being the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes before that, so I'm not sure YUG could be said to have been used before that date. I'm not even sure the IOC used country codes back then, as the article mentions nothing of the history of the codes and their use. Do you have any further information to contribute? Cheers.--211.28.181.102 16:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion
Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Username change
As you requested, your username has now been changed from Joestynes to Jnestorius. If you haven't done it already, please remember to move your user page and your talk page using the "move" tab on the upper right-hand side of your screen. Redux 22:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flag of Ireland
Please discuss on the Talk page and get consensus before making BIG changes as you did. I reverted for the time being. Evertype 23:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rugby league
"Start of sentence" is insufficient. This edit decapitalized one cell in a table where all others are capitalized. jnestorius(talk) 18:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll watch that. -- I@n 23:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Three points for a win
Hi, I saw you've extended the article Three points for a win with a section ==Other points systems== . Wouldn't it be interesting to create a now article Football point systems or something similar, giving an overview of different point systems, linking to normal 2-1-0 and 3-1-0, and the various other systems, giving a great overview of the various systems, and their importance of populairty. This would keep the Three points for a win-article for what is meant for an extended overview of the 3-points system ? Regards --LimoWreck 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was feeling a bit lazy. Thanks for the prod. Check out Group tournament ranking system. jnestorius(talk) 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, great article ! ;-) --LimoWreck 22:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IPA template/class
Odd that the template worked and class didn't—I'll have a look at this. —Michael Z. 2006-08-14 20:59 Z
- I've looked through all of the style sheets which apply, and can't find a reason that class="IPA" doesn't work in the table: template:IPA merely adds the same class in a span. There must be an intermediate style which overrides the table format, but I haven't found it yet.
- Go ahead and revert for now, but I'll still see if I can track down the problem.
- Which web browser do you use? Do you use Wikipedia's default monobook skin? I see you don't use a custom Wikipedia style sheet; do you have a custom style sheet configured in your web browser? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2006-08-15 14:38 Z
I just changed the table at Pronunciation respelling for English#Chart to class="IPA wikitable", from class="wikitable IPA". Of course this should not make any difference, but you never know. Please have a look and let me know if there's any improvement. —Michael Z. 2006-08-16 03:40 Z
- I use the Cologne Blue skin and no custom stylesheet. It works for me in Monobook, so I guess that tells us where the culprit is... jnestorius(talk) 19:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I found the Cologne Blue skin's main style sheet.[2] It appears to have many
font-familydeclarations, including a highly specific one which would override many declarations in user style sheets or templates, including theclass="IPA"attribute on a table:
- I found the Cologne Blue skin's main style sheet.[2] It appears to have many
#article, #article td, #article th, #article p {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;
[...]
}
-
- It doesn't seem to be necessary, since monobook specifies a global font at the top level with no problems—I think Cologne Blue might not be that well thought out, but I can't say for sure after just a quick glance.
-
- You could override these in your user style sheet, but that doesn't help other users of the skin. This will take some more investigation. I'm going to be away from Wikipedia for a while: sorry I can't promise to look at this in the near future. You might consider browsing with Firefox, which doesn't have Internet Explorer's font deficiencies, rendering this whole issue moot. —Michael Z. 2006-08-16 20:29 Z
[edit] All Ireland XI v Brazil
Well done on this page. Dodge 22:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Westmister -> Westminster
Just to let you know I've finally fixed these categories for you. Sorry about the delay, the backlog on CFD is pretty huge at the moment :-( For future reference you could probably have got it done quicker by creating the correct categories yourself, and tagging the misspelled ones with {{Db-author}}, which is designed for dealing with just such mistakes. the wub "?!" 12:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merging "Spelling alphabet"
- You're right. I mispelled it as "phoenetic"... just played some Age of Empires, had Phoenicians on the brain. lol
- Sorry about not putting up a matching {{mergefrom}} tag on the second page. Figured it was automatic.
- Didn't notice the redirect :(dumb me), but NATO phonetic alphabet was the article I had in mind, yes.
- I'll make sure to leave comments next time. My bad. :)
Sorry about the poor form and thanks for not flaming my talk page. I'm not going to re-add the merge request, but if you care to, I wouldn't mind.
[edit] An Post
While I see that you changed a category in this article, I don't see any point in removing the "See also" wikilinks that were there. This makes it more difficult to find associated articles and less productive for casual users who might not think to click on the category link (all the way at the bottom of the page) but would click on the "See also" wikilink if something interesting was listed. I know that as a new user I would not immediately go into categories. "See also" should be inclusive. I think this is a retrograde edit. Cheers ww2censor 03:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ireland national football team (IFA)
- Discussion moved to Category talk:Football in Ireland#IFA and FAI international teams
[edit] Barnstar of Diligence
Barnstar of Diligence
 |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| I noticed your annotation of the external link you added to the Republic of Ireland national football team article, and looking at your contributions, this is just one example of how much care and effort you put into Wikipedia. It is therefore an honour to recognise your work through the award of The Barnstar of Diligence. Robnpov 00:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] New Cork vote
There is a new move request and survey regarding Cork. This time it is proposed to move Cork to Cork (city) in order to move Cork (disambiguation) to Cork. You are being informed since you voted commented in the last Cork survey. See Talk:Cork. --Serge 07:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] geohack
Hi, you can alter the content of the geohack page by editing User:Magnus Manske/GeoTemplate. I don't know much about cartography either, I just wrote a wrapper around User:Egils extension and put it on the toolserver when Egils server went bye-bye. It is currently being contemplated wether to integrate Egils extension into Wikipedia installations, abolishing the need for the toolserver. --Magnus Manske 17:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Irish History
You seem like you have a lot a knowledge with respect Irish history so maybe you would like to comment on the historic basis of this term here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DownDaRoad (talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] I have reverted your edit...
To the article "Fatima" -- pardon me, but I think my version is much clearer in terms of choosing which disambig page the user wants to go to. If you want to change the wording, fine, but I would prefer that you did not revert to the old version which is unclear about the word "Marian" (which is, in itself, a totally different name and "Mary" cannot be turned into an adjective.) However, if you feel so strongly about it, then in the spirit of chanukah I will give you that edit. If you do revert it again, I am going to solicit another opinion. But I am generally averse to edit wars ... I don't care THAT much. - Abscissa 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- The references in "Marian apparition" do not use the term "Marian" -- I have never heard of any such word. They all talk about the virtion mary. - Abscissa 15:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eamon Broy
Nice work on the article: thanks for the refs! Snoutwood 18:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Creating a Category
How do I do it? I read that there is a page to click on to but I cant find it --Vintagekits 23:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ECCC
Well it was the right thing to do, and I can't believe people even got that wrong! But I understand what you're saying, and I should do it the legal way. I suppose if it's the right thing, it's definitely going to happen, but you know how pathetic it can be sometimes with justice, and when justice ain't done, it does really take the piss, and I'm sure we can all agree on that! MAZITO - Saturday, 27 January, 2007; 23:04 (GMT)
[edit] The end of the mediation cabal on the term Volunteer is ending in two days.
The mediation process is ending in two days - you have two days to have you final say and 1. Show any proof that Volunteer is a rank and 2. Leave your final vote in coming to a consensus here. Thank you. --Vintagekits 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Grammar schools
Great stuff, impressive in terms of both rapidity and professionalism. Itsmejudith 16:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Indexation of M', Mc and Mac surnames
Fair enough, although no-one has actually expressed opposition, and it might have been better if some note had been put on the talk page where it is appropriate. Sam Blacketer 09:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly, not everyone watches every relevant page, which can cause discussions to be missed or duplicated rather than cross-posted. I think when adding a point to a given WP: page, it's always wise to check that page's Talk: page. jnestorius(talk) 10:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: kidnaped spelling
Apologies for that error. I've removed the incorrect entry from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos and will include a note about formatting cleanup in my edit summaries (I'm just using the WP:AWB standard options there). Rjwilmsi
[edit] Tony Blair example on Br/Am Englishes page
Nice example for "full stop" versus "period". Much clearer than the previous example! Cyg-nifier 20:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Apologize
I apologize for my mistakes on the article Billion. I don't quite understand what I would move. Also, before I make the move, I asked the community for it's opinions on the talk page. Sorry. --Random Say it here! 00:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have a request and a question. First, am I write in thinking that if there was a consensus on the subject and I moved the page, I would move it like this. First I would go to the page Billion and move it to Billion (disambiguation). Then, I would go back to Billion and add the redirect? Secondly, I would appreciate if you would take a look at what I have done so far on Wikipedia, and evaluate me? Thanks for your time. --Random Say it here! 02:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Moving: first off, read Help:Moving a page. The procedure would be:
- Open Billion, select Move, and pick new name Billion (disambiguation). This moves the page and its edit history and its Talk page and its Talk page's edit history to the new name. It automatically creates a new page with the old name "Billion" which redirects to the newly-moved page.
- In this particular case, the target page "Billion (disambiguation)" already exists, so only an administrator can complete the move, as it would require the old target page to be deleted first. This would be requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
- Open (the new) Billion, and edit it to be a redirect to 1000000000 (number).
- Open Billion, select What links here.
- You would have to check all the pages that link to "Billion" to see whether it is appropriate that they link 1000000000 (number); some might need to be edited to link to Billion (disambiguation) instead. (Long and short scales is one that should be edited.)
- If there are any double redirects, change them to redirect straight to 1000000000 (number) instead of through Billion
- Open Billion, select Move, and pick new name Billion (disambiguation). This moves the page and its edit history and its Talk page and its Talk page's edit history to the new name. It automatically creates a new page with the old name "Billion" which redirects to the newly-moved page.
- Moving: first off, read Help:Moving a page. The procedure would be:
-
- Evaluation: I don't mind giving you some feedback when I have a bit of time; however, I'm likely to be fairly inactive on Wikipedia for the next week or so (pesky Real World :) jnestorius(talk) 22:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I am still waiting for some feedback on the subject of redirecting the article & such. Hope you have a nice break, and I can't wait till you get back so you can review me. --Random Say it here! 00:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:FAINos.gif
Hello, Jnestorius. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:FAINos.gif) was found at the following location: User:Jnestorius/Republic of Ireland national football team. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nonsense of Sin bin
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sin bin, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sin bin provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sin bin, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure why this message arrived. I have constructed a possible sequence of events. Make of it what you will:
- I discover there is no page sin bin, although there is Sin Bin which redirects to Penalty box. This is adequate for entering "sin bin" in the search-box but not for embedded wikilinks [[sin bin]].
- I add sin bin as a redirect to penalty box. Problem solved. Wikipedia is improved. Time passes.
- Much later, some joker replaces this redirect in sin bin with text "Also known as the Fitz Sin Bin"
- Some time later, somebody adds a speedydelete tag to the nonsense, without checking the article history for a previous good version.
- Some time later, User:BorgQueen deletes the page, without double-checking the article history.
- Some nearby time (how does this bot work?), a message is left at my userpage because I created the page, even though I didn't produce the offending version.
- I don't know whether this reconstruction is accurate, but it's the most plausible I can think of. There may be lessons here for User:Android Mouse Bot 2, User:BorgQueen, and whoever added the speedydelete tag (not being an admin, I can't identify this last User).
- BTW, I've recreated sin bin. jnestorius(talk) 00:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hi, there is no need to overreact. If you are aware of the sheer number of nonsense articles we admins have to delete every hour, you will understand why admins, being mere mortals, aren't perfect. (And neither will you if you happen to become an admin someday) And it wasn't even a regular article but a redirect page. You re-created it, and the problem has been solved. As for the warning placed on your talk page generated by an automatic bot - you are quite welcome to delete it since it clearly has been misplaced by the bot. Enjoy wikipedia! --BorgQueen 02:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- BorgQueen: I guess my comments read like a complaint. I'm sorry, that's not how they were intended. "There may be lessons here" was intended not as a sarcastic scolding, but a sincere suggestion. I don't know the intricacies of handling deletions; I thought the Bot might be malfunctioning; my comments were mainly intended for its controller, who might be able to fix the malfunction. Notifying you was an aside. You are correct that in this instance the problem was easily fixed by recreating the redirect; with an article with a long edit-history an undelete might be more tedious (Maybe not: I don't know, I'm not an admin: I have enough of an inkling of the drudgery involved never to want to do be one.) I'm still not sure of my analysis of the situation, but if you're not worried then neither am I. Peace, jnestorius(talk) 23:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Compound adjectives and daylight saving time
Thanks for your recent change to Daylight saving time. This caused me to look to the original citation again and I found that your doubts about calling "daylight saving" a compound adjective were justified. I changed the text to match the citation. Eubulides 23:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Britain
[3] Of course, I know the MOS advice on this matter. My opinion was that the dabpage was unnecessary as only one of the things listed there is actually called "Britain", so I moved it to Britain (disambiguation) and I wanted to redirect Britain to Great Britain and place a hatnote there, but I forgot, sorry for any misunderstanding this may have caused. Would you agree that the latter option is more appropriate for this article? SalaSkan 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, I disagree. It is simply not true that only one of the things listed there is actually called "Britain". Check out "Britain" in various dictionaries and encyclopedias: some define it as "island of Great Britain"; some favour "United Kingdom"; some mention both. The articles British Isles (terminology) and British assert, correctly in my opinion, that both senses are current. The Britain article must be consistent with the other articles. Above all, read the Talk page; and note the section Talk:Britain#Request to Redirect: Britain to Great Britain from a year ago. jnestorius(talk) 16:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
For catching my mistake in English respelling. I got distracted with making that disambiguation page and forgo to make the link properly... Circeus 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please join
| WikiProject Debating Invitation |
|---|
| Dear User, WikiProject Debating is inviting you to join as a participant. This special project attempts to standardize coverage of regional and world debate related articles. If you would like to participate, please join us from the following link WikiProject Debating. -- Niaz bd 15:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Did you know...
 |
On 11 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Katherine Rawls, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Allen3 talk 15:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Volunteer
You agreed to the consensus made on the 'Volunteer' mediation discussion earlier this year here. However, some editors believe that a new consensus has been established where "IRA volunteer" is used without the initial mention of "IRA member". Although no discussion has taken place, they feel that because articles were changed from the format of "IRA member (volunteer)" to simply "IRA volunteer" and were not subsequently reverted for several months (until noticed by myself and another user), that this therefore establishes it as the new consensus and that the mediation ruling is now defunct. You can see discussions of this here,here, here. As a party involved in this discussion previously, your commentis valuable, and so it would be apprreciated if you could make any comment you might have here if you have one. Regards. Logoistic 20:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Katherine Rawls
Well, I don't think that Miss Rawls lost her second given name after her marriage with Mr. Thompson. And I don't think, that this needs any evidence. Anyway, the bigger problem is, that her DoB is not June 28, 1917, the correct DoB is June 14, 1918. See: [4], [5], [6], and [7] Thanks and :) Doma-w 00:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] U2 Tower
I thought you might be interested in updating this article. The twisitng tower design has been scrapped altogether. It's now a 180m tower. article and picture. Wiki01916 09:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Angina in American and British English pronunciation differences
Thanks for your help with this. I am a Brit who went to work in the US with cardiologists (I am not one myself) and was startled to find the word uniformly pronounced "ANGina" not "angIna". I never heard a US person use the British pronounciation. I haven't got that episode of the Simpsons, nor have I heard of "The Angina Monologues". Your link to "The Vagina Monologues doesn't seem to shed any light - but any facetious use could be suspected of changing the pronunciation for the sake of the joke Rachel Pearce 16:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I find onelook useful for comparing dictionaries. Both American Heritage and Merriam-Webster give both pronunciations, with the Brit-compatible one first. There's a lag between dictionary updates and current usage, so I can believe your first-hand evidence that ANGina is now more usual; the article's current qualification that both pronunciations occur seems about right to me. PS: "The Angina Monologues" was just a sight-gag in that Simpsons episode, which I listed more because I thought it was funny than as actual evidence. Thanks, jnestorius(talk) 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's interesting about the pronunciations in the dictionaries. I suppose my experience is rather bias(s)ed - maybe cardiologists (or specialists of any kind in any subject) are much more likely to use uniform pronunciations of the terms in their specialist vocabulary, whereas the "general public" (which is what this article is about) may use the terms with a wider range of pronunciations. PS Finally I get it about the Simpsons joke, sorry to be so dimwitted. Now you mention it I even think I did see that episode! Rachel Pearce 20:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV tag in Alphabetic principle article
Hi,
Could you give me some more information about what you think is POV in the relevant section of this article?
Thanks,
Rosmoran 03:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ireland
We could probably use your expertise here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Ireland, thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
On a similar note, I've reverted your edits to the NI team, as a rule you are right to avoid duplication, but Im not convinced that the Ireland article is sufficiently coherent to merit a content removal from the main article and replacement with a link, It does have some excellent content but some of it's the wording is quite dubious. I have put a comment on the talk page along these lines. Fasach Nua 12:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Republic of Ireland
The articles, which I believe you have contributed to, about the results of the Republic of Ireland national team have been nominated for deletion. I have spoken up for keeping them. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 1345
Thanks for the response on the talk page. Most people seem to really like it, even in its not-nearly-finished state. I'm glad the response has been so positive. Wrad (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] IFA teams
- Have sort help to resolve Ireland national football team (IFA) issue at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Djln —Preceding comment was added at 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've followed WP:BE BOLD and moved the page (dont be afraid to undo if you object) Fasach Nua (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Ireland national football team (IFA)
An editor has nominated Ireland national football team (IFA), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland national football team (IFA) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Jnestorius, like your mock up with kits, infobox etc. Slight disagreement over wording in opening paragraph but nothing that can’t be sorted. Disappointed to see Fasnacah has nominated arrticle for deletion. Very petty. Djln--Djln (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Chinese Wall
Like the change. --evrik (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mallow, County Cork
Thank you so much for adding the details of the etymology of "Mallow". I'd made the original comments re. the name confusion as Gaeilge but I'd no idea as to it's complexity and depth. Awesome research and thanks for sharing :) - Alison ❤ 09:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, thank you for the promptest thanks I've had on Wikipedia! --jnestorius(talk) 09:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome :) I've lived in Mallow for years and never knew that. BTW - in a blatant attempt at wiki promotion, could I possibly interest you in [8] ? It's been restarted last August having been dormant for years and things are really coming on there. Your expertise would be awesome :) - Alison ❤ 09:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Frank Capra
I think what you're trying to accomplish on that article is a little akin to putting a "Not to be confused with Theodore Roosevelt" hatnote on Franklin Roosevelt's article. Is there a basis for confusion? If not, the hatnote is not warranted. Hatnotes don't exist merely to link together articles of similar names. Placement of "Francis Capra" on a "Capra" disambiguation page would be appropriate, but unless he has gone by the name of "Frank Capra" in his career, people refer to him as "Frank" publicly, or there is evidence of confusion between the two, the hatnote is not in accordance with guidelines. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Martin Corry (Irish politician)
|
On 19 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Martin Corry (Irish politician), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Game 39
|
On 21 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Game 39, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of Irish county nicknames
|
On 28 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Irish county nicknames, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--jnestorius(talk) 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- You sad, sad individual. jnestorius(talk) 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Billion
You seem to have an interest in Billion. As you probably know this is a dab page and its style/content is governed by MOS:DAB which you may care to read before making further edits to this page. Abtract (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Films coordinator elections
The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blueshirts
Thanks for you interest in the St. Patrick's Blue article; the mention of the Blueshirts is a valued addition. However, a cross reference websearch of Blueshirts and St. Patrick's Blue revealed no correspondence. Until we have more, we must correctly keep the mention of the Blueshirts in the "other blues" section. House of Scandal (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I just noticed the message at Talk:St. Patrick's Blue. Thanks for being specific regarding your reference. I have reverted to your previous edit. Sorry for the mix up. House of Scandal (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Irish footballers
A debate that might interest you has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Djln--Djln (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Definition of Northern Irish
I have made a request at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) concerning the definition of Northern Irish. Djln--Djln (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Death of John Lennon
Can you explain why you took out the definite article = The? It must be "The death of John Lennon", or "John Lennon's death", because any other way makes no grammatical sense.
Maybe it should be "John Lennon (death)".--andreasegde (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). And compare the names of all the other articles in Category:Deaths by person. jnestorius(talk) 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recognizing German football titles
Okay, so I'm a little confused, but its percolating through I think. If I read right, there are actually two systems in place (?), one that recognizes Bundesliga championships (multiple, non-numbered stars) that is in use in by Bundesliga-level teams and a separate protocol for recognizing historical and East German titles (a single, numbered star) for everybody else? Maybe that just needs to be said explicitly. Sorry if I messed up your edit. Wiggy! (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Libel
I think you might benefit from reading Defamation, and try to understand the difference between a statement of fact, and an opinion. The section Other Defenses - Opinion, refers. Myers wrote an opinion piece on Wikiepdia. I wrote an opinion on Myers' story. Absent libel, you have no standing to remove that opinion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- For a a journalist to deliberately falsify the information on which he reports, for personal gain, is professional misconduct. To sugggest this on based on the flimsy evidence you provided is defamatory.
- In any case, you might benefit from reading Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, in particular:
- "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."
- "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject"
- "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:
-
- Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details
- Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection How to use article talk pages)."
- jnestorius(talk) 17:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bot approved: dabbing help needed
Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. PLease also pass on the message to anybody else who you may think might be willing to help. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
