User talk:JW1805/Archive 1

Poll (Macedonian Slav or Macedonian)

I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies. There is a poll in the talk page of the 'Macedonian Slavs' article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll

Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonians without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people that _possibly_ share or represent a different point of view.

Image copyright

Thank you for uploading Image:John gorrie monument.jpg and for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please give proof of this on the image page. If the image is fair use, please provide a rationale. Thank you. --Admrboltz 4 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)

Rod of rule

Hi,

I edited the page for Rod of rule some time ago. I basically removed the very outlandish claims that were made (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rod_of_rule&oldid=12975676) and left it as an article on some mythological piece. It is related to Bachal Isu; the speculation seems that they are in fact the same, have some kind of magical powers and may still exist today. "Bachal Isu" seems to be a well established legend, with 86 hits on google. However, "Rod of rule" indeed seems less reliable: most links on google actually repeat the wikipedia text. Do you think it should be deleted? If you want to post it on the VfD, I would support it.

UnHoly 8 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Much of the future of Northern Ireland will be decided by its electorate, not by informal surveys. It can't stand.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I made no predictions, I have not voiced any political opinions, and if you believe any of my edits are POV, make your case on the relevant talk page. My point on the survey is that it was informal and is not reflected in the choices made by the region's electorate.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Please don't get involved in disputes just because of Lapsed Pacifist.Heraclius 22:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Anglican Communion

Hi. I see you've put a cleanup notice on this page. While the page certainly does need a lot of cleanup -- it's mostly undigested chunks of 1911 Britannica text sitting uncomfortably aside a few modern additions -- I'm a bit puzzled by your choice of cleanup tag: the one you used suggests that the article has an unencyclopedic tone. Could you please explain that on that article's talk page? Thanks. Doops | talk 18:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

You and User:Lapsed Pacifist have both been blocked for 24 hours for multiple breaches of the 3RR on a number of pages.

Fear�IREANN\^(caint) 06:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Regions of the U.S.

I have recently noticed that all of the maps on all of the articles concerning regions of the United States are being reverted. The maps being reverted are the standard maps that were originally agreed upon. They are now being systematically removed and replaced by maps that are not as accurate and green boxes that are not only non-standard but also unnesessary on most of the articles. I have done the best I can to undo these reverts, but it only ends up in the creation of new edit wars. If nothing can be solved, then I suggest that all maps be removed and the pages protected from editing until disputes are settled. -- 67.85.2.175 02:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Ireland

You may want to take a glance at Irish Republican Army. A user wants to blur the line between the Old IRA and later IRAs and is annoyed that, as a professional historian, I am trying to point out the fact that post 1922 IRAs did not have the same legitimacy in the public's eyes as the IRA of the Anglo-Irish War. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Eric Gilder VfD ... HOAX?

Thank you for the comment, are you suggesting that the Eric Gilder article is a hoax? Hall Monitor 15:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

templates

Thanks for your work on templates. I think they look superb and add a lot to the page. The idea just occurred to me last night that they would be an interesting addition to the page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Eric Gilder VfD ... HOAX?

I (MPLX) left Wikipedia some months ago after running into the onslaught of the ill-informed Christian right wing. Although I am not monitoring Wikipedia and do not have any intention of rejoining Wikipedia due to the small cabal of noisy and ill-informed (as opposed to uninformed) people who love deleting stuff, I have been pressed to add this comment due to the sudden interest in deleting a few of the articles that I contributed to. (I have written about many topics.)

It would appear that someone has it their head to sever any ties between John Lilburne and the foundation of American law. This led to a constant barrage of negative comments on the Hugo Black article. Now I see that the idea is to claim that "Carolana" is a misspelling of "Carolina" and to go further and claim that the article about Carolana is a hoax. To this end both Dr. Kenneth Brown of the University of Houston and Dr. Eric Gilder of the University of Sibiu have also been smeared as being not noteworthy and at worst as the creators of vanity and even hoax articles. Such rants by the few lunatics who have gained a noisy control over Wikipedia are one reason why I left Wikipedia and why Wikipedia is in danger of becoming the refuge of a right-wing idiots.

It would seem that a handful of people are trolling with the intent to delete anything that they may disagree with. I noticed the same approach was used on the subject of copyright law within articles dealing with the subject of recorded music and broadcasting which I also contributed to. Now I see that all broadcasts by 4FWS have been tagged as not worthy because they were on "pirate" radio stations - even though several were on licensed stations. However, everything is being smeared and tarnished to make it appear that everything and anything that I contributed to was either a hoax, a work of vanity or unnoteworthy. I also created the history of the development of the jet fighter, but I have not as yet (and probably won't bother) checked to see if those entries are also being targeted.

It is unfortunate to say the least because I thought that Wikipedia had merit, but when I discovered that a mere handful of dedicated zealots could take it over and put their own stamp of ideological approval on it - I left.

Before making more claims that Carolana never existed I would suggest that you perform a little serious research. Unfortunately the zealots have decided that they are a jack of all subjects (and master of none), and because they have never heard something before it means that the subject is either a hoax or a vanity creation by someone else. How pathetic for Wikipedia!

66.90.213.45 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX)

Wow!

Just wanted to say great work on stuff like Orleans Territory and especially West Florida. That's really good stuff. I'm always so happy to meet American history buffs on Wikipedia. Anyway, lovely and thanks. jengod 06:35, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

P.S.

Under Photos Submitted, rather that using the whole path to prevent the images themselves from loading, you can use a colon after the first double brackets and just the image name. Ditto for mention categories in talk posts, etc. For example, [[Image:Spanish Florida Map 1803.jpg]] would usually just load the image (if I hadn't used the nowiki tags around it, which is another option), but if you do [[:Image:Spanish Florida Map 1803.jpg]], you're free and clear, and you get blue links, rather than external-link signifying green ones. And [[:Category:Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees]] would get you a link to that category, rather than adding this talk page to the category. Just an FYI, in case you didn't know. If you did...well then I'm shutting up now. jengod 06:44, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

your trying to hide the truth.

i see that you've been busy editing out my part of certain articles. sometimes you say it's my opinion, like on the draft, although i prove that its unconstitutional by using the constitution. its not my opinion. i hope you don't mind, but i posted those sections on my user page, and may have made a few comments about you conducting a cover up and trying to hide the truth. and something about those sections being removed for being too accurate. all of this is true. i just wanted to let u know that i was bashing you, and i really dont like anyone conducting a cover up, no matter who it is or what its about. ColdFusion650 02:23, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Federalist Papers

Just wanted to thank you for spurring me to action on Federalist No. 10, the page looks pretty good now although I need to flesh it out. Nice template too, it's about as good as a 90% redlink template can look. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

Image:Flag Gun.jpg

Your descriptionfor Image:Flag Gun.jpg says that it's both created from images in Wikipedia and public domain. Please identify the source images. Also note that if any of them is not public domain, your derivative work cannot itself be public domain, though your own changes can be dedicated to the public domain. Net result is that it will have the licensing status of the most restricted license of any image involved. Jamesday 03:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

On an unrelated issue, I've removed the image from the template Template:USgunlegalbox it was used in, for it's the view of only one side in the gun debate in the US that gun ownership is fundamental to the US and the image appears to be endorsing that view by presenting the gun over a flag-like background, apparently symbolising the US. You might try something like a gun over a question mark or vice-versa as an alternative. Jamesday 03:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Unalienable rights

I hadn't noticed that Kim Bruning had removed the official poll; I've replaced it, and copied your comment to it as support — I hope that that's OK. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Didn't know where to put it

Any idea where the NRA press release should go?

Flag merge

Thank you for removing the merge tags- it is clear that no one would reasonably support a merge of the Union Jack and List of British flags pages. Astrotrain 22:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Images

Regarding the removal of a number of images from the Thomas McKean article I wrote. I have been trying to make the appearance of these articles more visually interesting, while providing some pictorial clues about the content to the less thorough reader. I am about to give up on pictures due to the vigilance of the copyright police, so the result is what you saw. Admittedly, I am still experimenting to see how best to do this. What are your guidelines on what visuals are helpful- and not? What do you think of the content? I never get any feedback, except on the images.

I also notice you seem to be making your own maps- which I like. Do you know where I can find documentation on how to do that myself? You thoughts are appreciated.

stilltim 12:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Newton Stamp pic

I removed that stamp pic because it was not valid fair use, re: camildo's objection in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Isaac Newton/archive1. Oh, by the way, please vote! Borisblue 22:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Inalienable Rights

JW, I'm confused by your revert and your comment.

23:54, 18 October 2005 JW1805 (rvt. Assume good faith that sources given are valid)

You put an {{Unreferencedsect}} tag on the Criticism section on Sept 26[1]. Not a single reference has been provided since. Yet when I finally delete the section nearly a month after you requested that claims be cited, you revert it back. Do they need more time to cite a source?

Even more confusing, you took off the tag and said to assume good faith about the sources given. No attempt has been made to provide any sources since you added the tag. Links to the definitions of terms in the article do not associate the Declaration of Independence with naturalistic fallacy in any way. I tried looking up some association between the two in Google and I can't find anything. In fact, every article I read that includes both "Declaration of Independence" and "naturalistic fallacy" states that they have nothing to do with each other. Is there some source you are using that I'm not aware of? Can you point me to any link that says the U.S. Declaration of Independence is an example of the naturalistic fallacy? --Zephram Stark 00:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Blocked users are able to edit their own userpages even while blocked, but they can't edit anywhere else. It's to give them some means of on-Wiki appeal, I think. -Splash^talk 12:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin sometimes protects the User:talk page of the person she's blocked too. Unless you can think of any other reason for her to do that, I would have to say that it proves she is completely corrupt. --Zephram Stark 04:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Vicksburg photo

That photo I've seen in two articles is rather poorly lighted. Could you try to Photoshop it to improve the visibility of the figures or replace it with a better version? Although it will probably be ignored in the VNMP article, the prominent ACW article deserves better quality. Thanks. Hal Jespersen 15:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Concerns about sockpuppets etc.

If you have concerns about Zephram Stark's editing and feel he is using sockpuppets, you should probably be entering that evidence here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence and/or commenting here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark/Workshop. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please show us all of your "evidence." Jesus Christ, don't you people know how many good editors you're scaring off with your frivolous accusations? I guess that's the point though, isn't it? If you can't sway them to your way of thinking, just call them a sockpuppet. If they still stick around after your abuse, just permablock them. Jayjg and SlimVirgin have found this method to be quite effective, and no other administrator apparently dares to stand up to them. --Zephram Stark 18:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

H JW, would you mind e-mailing me, please? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Corrupt people don't like to talk where it's transparent. --Zephram Stark 18:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

File:HappyToPlease.gif

Love those seals

...in the Constitution. Good job. --Zephram Stark 01:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Monarch templates

Thanks for completing the work on standardising the templates of the early English/Wessex monarchs. Before I did the original conversion work, the name in the non-templated table appeared in a larger font, I have not managed to reproduce this in the template. You seem to have done a lot of work on templates, do you think you could fix this?

A second point, now that the title is actually being displayed, I think it is probably redundant. I think it should be removed, do you have a view? Martin.Budden 09:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Style templates

Hey,

I've looked at the couple of the new shaped templates. I'm afraid when I looked at them in all the browsers I have they simply didn't work. The problem is shape. The original ones were shaped long rectangular because they made minimal impact on text. Wide rectangular boxes have a visually distorting effect because they are not the usual shape. Also I put the image below the name because that allowed room for long names. Long names + crown make the template seriously distort the visual look of the page. I think the original shape and look works far better. It was also the one that all sides agreed to. I'm afraid a new look and shape risks setting both sides of thaht damned row off again, saying "that is not what I agreed to". That row was one of the worst in WP history. Some of the debates have to be seen to be believed. So I strongly advise leaving things as all sides signed up to originally. Codes could be changed, but the look should be as agreed to. That way it is the same shape, look, colour-scheme that all sides felt they could sign up to. The new variants simply don't work from what I can see. Sorry. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's an earlier one [2] before the debate turned nasty. Here's it beginning to get heated.[3] There are other pages around somewhere. By the way, here's one of the pages on the debate. [4]. There are others somewhere. I'll keep trying to find them. The original debate started this time last year and produced edit wars on royal pages all over the place, blockings for 3RRs, threats, allegations, claims of abuse of powers, and just plain abuse. A lot of the talk was also carried on by email, often to keep the warring factions apart. The end of it really took place by email. I emailed over 50 users who had been participants in the debate discussing what they wanted and didn't want, where they wanted it and didn't want it, what look they wanted and didn't want, etc, then tabled a proposal based on what seemed to me the format that had most agreement. To my amazement what had been a nasty, bitter edit war suddenly became all peaceful, with two of the most extreme figures both agreeing: one, who had forced the original inclusion of styles, emailed me to say 'I'll be only acceptable to me if in neutral colors like purple and based on the papal box'. The other emailed me to say 'I'll only go with this if it is in neutral colours (isn't purple a royal colour?). The like the papal box. Could we base it on that?". I cracked up laughing. The two 'extremists' who weren't even talking because of what they said about each other both had the same minimum demand for it to get their backing, the same colour scheme suggestion and the same suggestion for which template to use as a basis for designing it. It was hilarious. Afterwards both emailed me to say 'How did you get 'x' to agree to that? I thought he'd never accept that sort of box?' I was soooo tempted to say how it took long and hard bargaining. I think everyone was amazed how easy it was to find a solution in the end that all sides were quite pleased with. Everything thought the 'style wars' as we called them were insoluble and would last indefinitely. Instead both sides began a race to be the first to put the boxes in!!! (Someone emailed me a joke citation 'Wikipedia Peace Prize') lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh. It was bad, wasn't it! I've never seen anything like it. The reason they are on separate lines is because some browsers seen to adjust the font size, so space allowed for that rather than creating a mess. Also there are some royals and probably more will crop up in time, who have potentially large styles, like Imperial and Royal Majesty. We may also want to develop the table to cover long styles like Right Honourable, etc. So a lot of space was given to cover all eventualities. The word style was included for two reasons. (1) Some people thought, for example, that spoken on its own could be POV as though one was saying that is what one has to say. Saying spoken style was thought to be more NPOV because it was interpreted as implying "its an option. But you don't have to use styles." I know it sounds nitpicking, but believe me after 8 months of this row the smallest nuance could offend people. It had to be worded in a way that covered all eventualities and didn't annoy the "no styles" brigade who were just looking for the slightest hint of POV. (Just as the styles lot were just looking for anything that wasn't respectful enough!) Man what a nightmare. Give me the task of bringing peace to Iraq rather than ever having the mediate in the styles wars again!!! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"Reverts"

Please, if you're going to revert at least check you are not deleting others hard work. Your recent edit to Template:UKFormation to revert the Wales link also reverted the work I done to use {{flagicon}} in the template... Thanks/wangi 22:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Do NOT change my image licensing

You changed Image:Bonnieblue.png from my legitimate usable version to a copyright encumbered lower resolution version that is inaccurate as well as changing the image licensing to PD. The version I have uploaded is MORE HISTORICALLY ACCURATE not only in color but in shape of the star. Not to mention the version you reverted to is NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN. Please do not do this again.  ALKIVAR™ 04:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Responded at Image talk:Bonnieblue.png.