User talk:Jdforrester/Old Archive 2

This is an archive of my talk page, the current version of which is located here.

---

Note that I am likely to reformat, delete, or otherwise alter what appears here...

hi

edit

this

so

i

can

prove

that

you

are

still

an

active

user

*Please* put Arbitration matters here

A rationale for the Arbitration Committee's developing Policy

elements cross-posted to each others' talk pages - James F., Angela

I've written a short-ish rationale for the Policy of the Arbitration Committee as it currently stands, and as you have been noticable in your concern about the way it's been developing, I thought you might want to have a look at it. Thoughts?
James F. (talk) 18:06, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for writing the rationale. It does help to explain some things. I'd rather not comment on it at this stage though as I don't want to start making judgements about the committee before they have even got started. Or, I don't those judgements to be written down anyway; I can't actually stop myself making them. :) Angela. 02:49, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

No problem; I started doing it really just so as to work out for myself a philosophy behind what we were deciding in a consistent manner, and it sort of somehow became seemingly worthwhile. Gosh.

As you note, it's not yet finished, as the Policy isn't, but the we on the Committee are trying to get things done as quickly as possible.

Hope that you're similarly helped by the finished article.

James F. (talk) 03:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your AC question: an answer (of sorts)

elements cross-posted to each others' talk pages - James F., Anthere

As you requested, I've answered your question on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration.
Again, I'm sorry that we didn't seem to agree before on IRC.
Take care.
James F. (talk) 02:40, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thank you for the answer (will look at it more in details later). As for our disagreement, let us it not cover our larger areas of agreement :-)

FirmLittleFluffyThing 07:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But of course; we certainly agree on far more than we quarrel.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 10:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Matter of Wik: Remedy 7

Could you vote on remedy #7 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik/Decision? I proposed it after you voted for the other issues, so you may not have seen it. Cheers. Martin 12:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

instruction? Gosh, that feels powerful... ;-) Martin 15:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

arbcom

(spam) Please vote at Wikipedia:Matter of Anthony DiPierro to accept or reject. It's been well over a month. Martin 01:27, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Paul Vogel's Banning and Censorship

Dear JamesF and Fred,

This is Steve and his "ilk's" doing. You know that he has falsely tried to have me banned before, and there are ALWAYS at least TWO SIDES to every story.

It is clear that a cabal of censorous pov bigots have falsely accused me of being a "troll", "vandal", or of making "abusive comments" on some TalkPages, or of "breaking the 3-revert rule". This is psychological projection by a pov mob or ilk of lying hypocrites. I do request Sam Spade, to be my "advocate", and I also can provide evidence to demonstrate the fact that those here attempting to have me banned and to have me censored, are themselves "trolls", "vandals", and have themselves broken the 3-revert rule and have hurled "personal insults and have abused and used slanderous and false personal insults and "abusive comments" as their own stock in trade and in their own pov bigoted and biased campaign of "character assassination".-PV

---

Could you please vote on the issue at hand, Vogel is continuing his behavior it would be helpful to have a ruling one way or the other. GrazingshipIV 01:01, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Anon reversion wars

James, I'd like to bring to your attention the fact that Levzur has now begun a series of simultaneous reversion wars from anonymous proxy servers, making it very difficult for a number of editors to work on about 10 articles. I would be grateful for the Arbitration Committee's urgent attention in this matter. Details are at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ChrisO_and_Levzur/Evidence#Anonymous_reversion_wars. -- ChrisO 11:59, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

• Hello, I would like to second the request for attention to Levzur's ongoing reversion wars (additional reversions May 11 and May 12). See also my comments under [1]. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Re: Mr-Natural-Health

crossposted to each others' talk pages; James F., Kd4ttc

Dear Mr. Forrester. I regret seeing the MNH matter come to the point it has, but thank you for being willing to participate in the process. I read the policy. Am I correct in understanding that at this point Accept votes means that the request for arbitration has been accepted by three committee members, but that at this time no decision has yet been made either to arbitrate or for a decision on what to do? I ask merely to understand the process, with comments regarding the matter on the arbitration page. Respectfully, Dr. Holland, Kd4ttc 03:19, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed correct; until another Arbitrator votes to accept, or four Arbitrators vote to reject, or, indeed, if a sufficient number of Arbitrators recuse themselves, such as that quorate would fall to three.

I agree with you that it regretful that this particular disagreement, or, indeed, any such fraças, has been felt necessary to refer to the Arbitration Committee.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:30, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just leaving a note on every Arbitration Committee Member's talk page pleading with them to look at this case more quickly. He is back in full flow these last few days [2] --bodnotbod 02:24, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

172 and VeryVerily

I have decided to withdraw my request for arbitration regarding these two users. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Withdrawal of request for my explanation. Since you voted to accept this case, I am specifically asking you to withdraw that vote. Based on the current situation, I believe the conditions you laid out for changing that vote to a rejection have effectively been met. --Michael Snow 04:37, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

That was fast! :) I added one more remedy, btw. Martin 00:10, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Arbritration request user:k1

I have requested mediation as you suggested. This was refused by K1. He is currently the second time banned for the same kind of behaviour. I would like to ask tou to revisit your vote. Thanks a lot Refdoc 14:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Status of The Cunctator

You put The Cunctator down as having "left" on the Arbitration Committee page, but didn't remove him from the listing of active arbitrators. Is there some indication that he has resigned, or left Wikipedia, other than his lack of contributions over the past month? If so, it might be appropriate to make the upcoming election for three seats instead of two. --Michael Snow 20:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, bugger. Thanks for spotting that. Fixed.

James F. (talk) 23:02, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration - subject: User:Mike Storm

I was just wondering if you could please post your vote on the subject of User:Mike Storm on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I would like to get this matter dealt with quickly, but you're probably busy so please take your time. Thanks! [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 17:02, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Other discussion elements

Tables on Peerage

elements cross-posted to each others' talk pages - James F., Lord Emsworth

I thought that the previous tables at Peerage looked a little better. I originally had them formatted where they exist in the center, but I felt that there was too much white space around them, causing an inelegant appearance. Therefore, I shifted them to the side. The borders help the reader separate the various numbers. If there is no objection, then I will revert to the previous style. -- Emsworth 01:14, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I see the "float:right", but it doesn't actually /do/ anything, here at least (which is why I removed it). The current formatting is fine, IMO, though.

James F. (talk) 03:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It works!

{{msg:{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}_{{CURRENTDAY}}}} ->

{{November_27}}

Thanks for the idea! --mav

No problem; good luck with all the work that you've just started on ;-)

James F. (talk) 07:29, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tree at Kenilworth Castle

It's a little difficult to tell without more info, but my suggestion for that tree is that it may be a Cryptomeria, a Japanese tree in the Taxodiaceae. jaknouse 02:01, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Right, well, I'll upload it as such; if we're wrong, well...

James F. (talk) 10:49, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a Giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum), not a Sugi (Cryptomeria japonica). The branch form is wrong for the latter. Giant sequoia is a very popular ornamental tree in Britain, particularly in this sort of situation. 'Fraid there's already plenty of pics at Giant sequoia. - MPF 18:09, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MPFC reversion

Please see our discussion of your use of the decontextualized phrase "still not dead" on the talk page for Monty Python's Flying Circus. Moncrief, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cryptography section revamp invite

JDF,

We have interacted before in re cypher v cipher (still bubbling up here and there, if you haven't noticed).

I'm writing to inform you (and to invite you) that article cryptography is up for featured status, and (at least in part) the discussion which resulted from that has apparently started a project to revise/revamp/improve/merge/xxx the cryptography / cryptology / books on cryptography / topics in cryptography / etc articles. There are stylistic, meta cryptographic, organizational, definitional, ... questions which have (or probably will) arise. And I see that I have completely neglected to list the spelling issue. See the assorted Talk:pages and User:Arvindn/crypto for the current state of play. Aside from myself, Arvindn, and Imran are involved.

Your interests, and previous participation, suggest you might be interested. I hereby formally invite you, though no such invitation is of course necessary in WPworld.

And, at the least, I suppose an OW might be needed to balance the representation amongst the participants. We are already somewhat balanced geographically.

ww 18:23, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

JDF, This has acquired a more formal and organized tone since this note to you. You're still invited, of course.

But this note is to inform you that the cypher v cipher thing has become formal and organized. You might want to contribute, if only as one with an opinion on the question, to be sure your views are correctly represented. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cryptography/Cipher_vs_Cypher for the discussion and the organized center for crypto generally. ww 20:48, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Re: Rhode Island

I don't feel any particular way about the presentation of that image. I reverted it. Thanks for being considerate, though. I appreciate that you asked :) Kingturtle 17:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Monty Pythons Fliegender Zirkus

I removed the apostrophe from the German version of MPFC because there are no apostrophes in German. Unless, somehow, the title "Monty Pythons Fliegender Zirkus" was meant to be interpreted as an English title for the first 2 words, and a German title for the remaining two words. Seems unlikely. I still think the apostrophe should go. Cheers JackofOz 00:47, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sucession table formatting

Please do not merge the sucession tables unless they are of titles; this is contrary to the standard used.
James F. (talk) 16:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Look, if you're going to ignore me and the standards, fine, but please at least start using the Wikitax syntax for tables rather than the less-editable HTML.

James F. (talk) 17:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I just saw your mesage now Formeruser-83 18:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck with the editing; I assume that the edits under 64.229.160.105, 64.229.160.109, 64.229.165.120, 64.229.164.26, 64.229.160.236, &c. are yours; you should see about getting them attributed to you.

HTH.

James F. (talk) 20:46, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Could we merge all succession tables relating to offices then? I raise this as an aesthetic consideration, because the bottom of the Winston Churchill article looks a mess at present. Mackensen 18:25, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

24 hour bans for edit wars

Hi Jd,

I've amended the proposal on 24 hour bans for edit wars. In short, the amendment calls for a quickpoll to take place before any such ban can be implemented. If you support this, I'd like you to add your vote in favor to the 24 hour ban vote, with the comment "with quickpolls".

Please also participate in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls.—Eloquence 22:15, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Missing image

Hi. You got the right image. We have been listing them all here Wikipedia:Pictures from pixelquelle.de to avoid duplication. There will be quite a few missing ones. One problem is that originally we presumed that pixelquelle.de was public domain - after all it does claim to be for license-free photos - however machine translating a discussion on .de and looking at their site they are actually under a non-commercial license - which is a shame. Secretlondon 19:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Spelling of "license"

"License" is the correct spelling. Why did you interpret the edit as vandalism even though it told you not to?? 66.245.107.80 01:20, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cut and paste from User talk:66.245.28.250, which was (presumably) yours at the time:

"Vandalism"? Surely you jest. 'Licence' is how the noun is spelt in (British) English (at least, according to the OED - feel free to correct them if they are wrong), and Wikipedia policy is to use the spellings appropriate for the article; the BBC being primarily a UK-operation, I feel that it is more than reasonable to assert that 'licence' should be used over 'license'. I've reverted your reversion.

James F. (talk) 01:16, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

James F. (talk) 01:45, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Steward-ship discussion

Hello ! I wanted to thank you for your trust on the m:Steward matter :-) It meant a lot to me :-) 'cause these were hard times. Feel free to criticize if I wander SweetLittleFluffyThing 20:04, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Umm. No problem.

James F. (talk) 20:26, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration rationale

It's generally considered bad form to change a British English term into American English, even if the word is somewhat rare... :-) (The OED claims that 'publically' is a recognised alternative spelling to 'publicly' that's been around at least since the 1920s.)
James F. (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize the other was a valid spelling. Maximus Rex 07:07, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

No problem, of course.

James F. (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

HRA

elements cross-posted to each others' talk pages - James F., Pete/Pcb21

I've moved the above page to... err... there, rather than Human Rights Act (UK), to follow the general practise of referring to Acts like that. Have deleted the (much much) older article to make way, rather than delete your history in a copy-and-paste thing. Hmm. Maybe the XML export/import thing would have been useful here. Might redo somewhat later. No matter.
I'm rambling. Just thought I should let you know directly.
James F. (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Right you are, guvnor. As the histories don't really overlap (in time), we should probably undelete the old article to give credit where it is due - I didn't think too hard about the appropiate name, just merged shorter into the longer. First time I have created a duplicate - though I don't feel too bad as Human Rights Act was still red when I came to. Thanks for keeping things organized! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I suppose that, really, we should have a redirect for every article of the form [[Foo Bar Act 1234]] from [[Foo Bar Act]]. Fun.

James F. (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Your comments prompted me to track down List of Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom. I think we do have to redirects otherwise we are going to get more dupes... e.g. there is a red link to Data Protection Act 1984 on that list, but the (crappy) article is at Data Protection Act. If the server is responsive today, I will have a go at making some redirects to already-existing articles. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Category:People

Are you planning on listing every single biography in wikipedia? Because that's what the name would suggest. →Raul654 08:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

You can have spaces in category names, by the way. Dysprosia 08:50, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Fixing of categories

elements cross-posted to each others' talk pages - James F., Pete/Pcb21

I noticed your summary comment at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom - saying that the category+infobox bug will be fixed "in a few hours". Do you know for sure it will be fixed in a few hours? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

No, not for sure, just sensing from what I'd seen written on IRC, the mailing lists, and some talk pages. Sorry for any confusion...

James F. (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Moving 47 Ronin

Hey, was wondering as you are an admin...could you please move 47 Ronin to Forty-seven Ronin as requested at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates? Thanks a great deal. Johnleemk 13:32, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Umm, OK, done - but you don't need to be a sysop to move pages...

James F. (talk) 23:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The problem was that Forty-seven Ronin was a redirect to 47 Ronin until you moved it. As the instructions stated, only a sysop can fix this, so... Johnleemk 04:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category:British Prime Ministers

Have you been looking at the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. There seems to be some sense that categories for people who held an office held by only one person at a time might not be appropriate for categories. What does Category:British Prime Ministers get you that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom article, and the succession tables on the articles for the individual PMs, does not do? john k 21:56, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, good point; I had forgotten that. I'd seen the category started, and so thought I should do the rest of the century's PMs, as starting material. Of course, this does seem to be somewhat missing the original point of categories - and so a system that would, through combination (and a nice interface, perhaps) allow you to automagically generate a list of all female prime-minsters who used to be actors, or whatever one's custom query was...

James F. (talk) 23:03, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template talk:Europe#Poll: Which items should be listed?

I am confused by your votes to oppose Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, and support Georgia and Åland. Could you please explain here? Thank you, Pædia 01:27, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

There's nothing significant to say more than that, in my personal opinion, saying that Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are in Europe seems less accurate than Georgia (which, itself, is a boarderline case). Åland is a joke, though - it's directly between six or seven European countries, a European territory, and part of the Baltic, so surely it is self-evidently in Europe; I can't really see how one could claim otherwise...

James F. (talk) 07:22, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The reason i ask, is that all sources list Kazakhstan, all but Britannica list Azerbaijan, and only World Book (maybe) lists Georgia.

Regarding Åland, you are totally correct to say it is in Europe. We do not question that, but whether to list as a dependency, which no source does.

Thanks again. Pædia 04:29, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)

Indeed. On further thought, I've upgraded my votes for Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan to be European as well.

As to Åland, yes, sorry, I meant to also add that I think that it's a dependency, though I suppose the difference to a territory is difficult to call. FWICR, it was ceeded under the LoN in 192...2? 3? the wrong way, AIW.

James F. (talk) 04:56, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Privy Councillor?

Well, in Canada it's Privy Councillor, at least according to the Privy Council Office in Canada http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=publications&Sub=min&Doc=intro_e.htm My paperback OED states: Privy Councillor (or Counsellor).

The Privy Council Office in Britain seems to use Privy Counsellor http://www.privy-council.org.uk I would think that a member of a council is a councillor but perhaps the Brits perfer an archaic, counterintuitive spelling?AndyL 23:49, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looking more carefully at my dictionary it says Privy Councillor (Privy Counsellor) (in Britain) a member of the Privy Council. Does that mean that in Britain it is spelt Privy Counsellor and elesewhere it is Privy Councillor? AndyL 00:49, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, if it wanted to say that it would say "(Privy Counsellor in Britain)". I think the whole definition is referring to Britain, and the two terms are both acceptable. john k 00:57, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

BBC uses Privy Councillor http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/a-z_of_parliament/p-q/85690.stm AndyL 01:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think "Councillor" makes more sense - the thing about them is that they are on a council, not that they offer advice. john k 01:21, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well yes and no. The point of the Privy Council is that they advise the monarch. Whilst that may only be theoretically so now, there was a time when the monarch had things done and other people just suggested what the monarch should do, innit... OwenBlacker 02:25, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I first got the idea from, but I've always taken "Councillor" to be referent for someone who represents a group of people (ie many to many through one), and "Counsellor" as that for one who 'counsels' (ie. one to one). Don't know if the etymology backs me up though. --VampWillow 14:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

EasyTimeline

Hi James, I see you find an new use for EasyTimeline. Can I ask you what is your verdict about the editing process? Of course it takes some getting used to the syntax. But did you find anything specifically confusing or unclear? Would you do it again? Cheers, Erik Zachte 07:49, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thx for the feedback. "Also, sometimes previewing the timeline would result in no picture, and I'd have to preview it again" I know, I suspect it is a problem with the squids. I used to get old versions of non-ET images or even articles in the past, this might be something similar. Erik Zachte 14:24, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

RfA

Considering Wik's current attack on Wikipedia, your removal of his artbitration is rather premature, don't you think? RickK 05:00, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Markup

elements cross-posted

I note you changed back a page I corrected the markup on with the edit summary of "Re-inserted blank line; it makes no difference to the display, and helps the mental splitting out when editing.". May I therefore point you at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) wherein it clearly states: "Spaces: According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, spaces below headings are unnecesary, and should be removed." --VampWillow 14:08, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Err, whut? I assume you're talking about United Kingdom; the edit that I reverted was by User:Kjspahis, and was not about a space between a heading and its first paragraph (which is what the text you refer to, err, refers to), but one betwixt a paragraph and an info-box; without the blank line, the two quite seperate parts of the article get somewhat comingled, I feel. It's a terribly minor point, though.

James F. (talk) 15:29, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Er ... I went by your name and that summary. Maybe it is just I keep finding pages with spaces after headings that I'm seeing them everywhere!. Info-boxes are, of course, an entirely separate mess ;-) --VampWillow 17:47, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Flower photo

Question for you: User:Ed g2s just put a |photo of yours (and a very nice one, too, I might add) on the Bleeding heart (plant) page. Your photo is identified as Dicentra formosa, but as you can see by the other photo on the same page, they look nothing alike. I don't know what plant your photo represents, but it's not d. formosa. I don't really think it's a bleeding heart at all. (Check [3] and [4] and [5], for example, for typical bleeding heart flowers.) Any way to check your source of info and relabel the photo? I'd like it to get into the right place, it's so clear. It looks like something I've had in my garden before but the name is evading me. Thanks. Elf | Talk 20:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Umm. I asked a question on the reference desk, and Theresa replied there, but I think I might have mis-understood what she was saying...

James F. (talk)

OK, I found the discussion on the reference desk and what theresa's describing sounds like a bleeding heart but doesn't look like this photo. :-) I followed the link from the reference desk but there are no photos there; i tried searching again for flora and it brought up no photos at that site. So I can't see what other photo(s) she might have been talking about. Elf | Talk 01:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the site. I put comments with the photos on the site; the arching stems with hanging heart-shaped flowers are the dicentra (although I don't know whether they're specifically dicentra formosa--there are many dicentra species). I also labeled a couple of varieties of pelargonium although I don't know which specific varieties they are. Don't know the others. If you were to post really-low-res copies of the unidentified plants somewhere, peoplemight be more tempted to help ID them. Even with my DSL, each of those photos took about a minute to download. Or maybe it's just the server is slow--updating the comments took a while, too. Elf | Talk 16:25, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the new photo! Nice. Elf | Talk 17:05, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merci Merci Merci

Thank you, VERY MUCH, sir, for adding the episodes to The West Wing (television). I've being meaning to finish it but lots of stuff is going on. In real life. And then I'm being voted on for admin on WP:RFA. So, yeah, I've been busy. Thank you.

Now we just have to figure out what to do about the TOC. Coz it's way too long. blankfaze | •• | •• 20:45, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PC

"The Right Honourable" is taken to be sufficient to show that a commoner is a member of the Privy Council. "PC" is only used for peers, who are automatically "The Right Honourable" or higher by virtue of their peerages. Proteus (Talk) 17:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah, good point.

James F. (talk) 18:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

EasyTimeline bug

Yes there is a bug, actually in Ploticus, the rendering package I use. With DateFormat dd/mm/yyyy sometimes the axis shows garbled data. I have reported it and received a source update. I may take a while though before I can apply this to Wikipedia. I'll have to compile Ploticus myself and ask someone with Linux and a test WikiMedia site to test it. You might postpone edits, or temporarily change to unit:year as follows: Erik Zachte 02:38, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lir's votes

elements cross-posted; follow on from request to stop banning Lir

Also, please do not remove people's votes. Doing so is, I believe, a bannable offence in and of itself (Michael was banned for mis-attributing and removing votes, IIRC). If a voter's reputation in your eyes isn't so pure-white as you would like, people will take that into account when reviewing the result of a poll. Thanks, James F. (talk) 19:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lir was blocked at the time I removed the vote. The only reason Lir was unblocked was because Guanaco has been going on a binge of unblocking users, including Michael and several EntmootsofTrolls incarnations. --H. CHENEY 19:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To quote the block log (snipped):

19:22, 3 Jul 2004 Guanaco unblocked "Lir" (clearly a violation of policy)

19:14, 3 Jul 2004 Hcheney blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 30 days (reinstating Hephaestos' block)

19:03, 3 Jul 2004 MyRedDice unblocked "Lir" (not unilateral any more then)

18:56, 3 Jul 2004 Hcheney blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 30 days (reverting Guanaco's unblocking of Lir, reinstating Hephaestos' block of 30 days - Guanaco please stop acting unilaterally)

18:21, 3 Jul 2004 Guanaco unblocked "Lir" (Lir didn't actually admit to trolling. He just said "Trolling is not a valid reason to # 05:22, 3 Jul 2004 Hephaestos blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 30 days (Admitting to trolling)

... or, to paraphrase, neither you nor Heph should have blocked Lir (he hadn't done anything sufficiently 'wrong' to santion or condone blocking him, and certainly not for a period anywhere near as long as a month.

Had anyone else blocked Lir, your excuse of "oh, he was blocked anyway" would have been risable; given that you yourself did so smacks of duplicity (assuming your awareness of the policy on blocking) or, failing that, a rather serious lack of knowledge of the policies by which we are all bound.

James F. (talk) 20:04, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There was a bit more to it than that, like the hour or two long discussion in IRC with Anthere moderating between Guanaco and Lir the previous evening. Jamesday 20:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gt St Barts church

Hi. I was wondering why you changed the name of the church from no-hyphens to with-hyphens. I always thought it had no hyphens and it doesn't have them on their own website. On the other hand Pevsner and Ackroyd both do. So I am very confused. Do you have a source for this?? Oh and well done, in any case, for merging the articles. --Nevilley 23:41, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will try to find out if there is a definitive version, and if so, what it is. --Nevilley 09:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

St Albans Cathedral

Just for information, St Albans Cathedral is generally spelt that way - as it is in the city of St Albans. Compare the number of hits for "St Albans Cathedral" on their website, versus the number of hits for "St Alban's Cathedral". - MykReeve 20:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My IB Final Exam Scores

They're in and they're posted on my user page. Check them out! Mike H 16:07, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

This is ridiculous!

You reverted your own vandalism at Tony Blair. This does not make sense! 66.245.125.53 01:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Request article move?

Hi, I was wondering if you would be able to move an article for me, railway signaling to railway signalling (the former makes no sense, railway is a non-US term, but signaling is US spelling).

I'm submitting this request to you on the basis that when I attempted to do it myself, I was told to contact an Admin. Yours was one of the few names I was familiar with.

Thanks - Go raibh maith agat, Zoney 14:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done.

James F. (talk) 22:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Petrol article

Just so you know, I was just kidding in the Petrol article. It just struck me as funny, that's all.--naryathegreat 19:12, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

No problem, but try to keep your comments to the Talk pages, in future :-)

James F. (talk) 22:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Peerage: ise v. ize

elements cross-posted

I believe that "ize" is acceptable in British English. In fact, the OED and Fowler's Modern English both suggest that "ize" is correct. -- Emsworth 00:27, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of what you, or even the OED, consider to be preferred and/or correct (and I could go on at length about how the OED considers itself a non-perscriptive tome, and so doesn't claim anything 'correct' at all), use of "-ize" is generally considered an Americanism, and, certainly, to switch to it (an action, rather than a usage, IYSWIM) can be considered... unfavourably.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 00:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism image re-deletion

Can you re-delete Image:HarryP.jpg? Thanks. -- Curps 11:38, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Overprotected

Hi.

Could you unprotect American and British English differences please? There's been peace in that particular valley for a number of days.

Thanks,
chocolateboy 10:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for making the effort for the encyclopædia.

James F. (talk) 15:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

trolling numbers

er it was actually 41 to 32 if you take out the dups. (i was against myself) best wishes Erich 20:26, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gasoline tax

Can you please move Gasoline tax to Fuel tax? The article covers several types of fuels, not just petrol/gasoline. Also, the title is not consistent with the Petrol article. I asked about this a week ago, but I've had no response.

Thanks,

Yama Wed Jul 28 12:10:10 UTC 2004

Why are your accepting Lir's request for arbitration? This doesn't carry any more weight than his repeated nominations of himself at request for adminship. This seems to call for dismissal or a deferral to mediation, as a check against likely trolling. 172 19:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)