Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:06, 15 July 2007

Welcome to my talk page! I'll sometimes reply on your talk, but will frequently (increasingly often) reply here. When leaving messages, please remember these easy steps: • Use a ==descriptive heading== • Use ] when mentioning users and pages • Sign your post with four tildes ~~~~ Click here to leave me a message

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I give this barnstar to John because of his good humor and replying or responing my questions everytime, keep up the great work, John.

Sherlock Holmes 23:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mailbox

I cc'd an email to you and it bounced back - your email box is full. I'll watch this page. Tyrenius 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

You shall be surprised to learn that sources are equally valid regardless of the language they are written in. Also that some people consider removal of sourced information vandalism. Nikola 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are so worried about this reference, why don't you ask me to explain you what it is and translate it so that you could see what it says? If you don't trust me, you could ask someone else who speaks Serbian to verify my translation. Nikola 15:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Greenland pic

I'm curious what part of Greenland Image:Greenlandmountains.jpg shows, and when this photo was taken? -- Beland 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It was taken in November 2006 from the window of a Boeing 747 on a transatlantic flight. The moving map display showed we were over Greenland at the time. I'm afraid I could not be more precise than that about the location. --John 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Very nice picture. Sunset, I presume? -- ChrisO 17:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. I suspect that at that latitude in November sunrise and sunset must be virtually one event. I'd love to see it from the ground some day, the furthest north I've ever been so far was Orkney. --John 17:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. Well I'm glad you snapped the photo, even if we don't know exactly where you were. 8) -- Beland 15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Hi. As you can see from the talk page of State Terrorism of the US, we have a problem with the title move that needs an admin to fix. I was trying to restore it but did it wrongly, and now it needs an admin to correct. Thanks.Giovanni33 05:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's sorted now though. Let me know if you need any other help. --John 06:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, actually the title is stuck at State-sponsored terrorism by the United States which was a stop gap measure (since it could not simply be moved back to State terrorism by the United States) which most people really do not like. It might be moved away from there again, but I think we should go back to that title while the discussion continues. I think this requires an admin to make the move because of a bunch of messy redirects though I could be wrong. Any chance you can move it back to State terrorism by the United States with a note that this is just correcting the bad move to "State-sponsored" and obviously future moves can be considered? I know you've already weighed in as wanting to keep the current title (someone removed your vote for some odd reason, but I put it back) so if you feel it would be inappropriate for you to make a move given that you have expressed a viewpoint I would understand (though personally I don't see it as a problem). Anyhow I think it would be good if someone could do this. Thanks!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have raised it at AN/I as I don't think it would be proper for me to use my admin tools in a conflict I've been involved in. Thanks for letting me know. --John 19:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I agree that's probably the best way to proceed.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Hi John, I just read over WP:DATE; I think it is about time I get the linking correct! Chris Buttigieg 18:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris, no problem. Very well done for all your good work; it was a pleasure to copyedit two such interesting articles. --John 18:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweep my links

Hello

I'm French . I don't understand why you recently swept the links I put on the page of Auxerre .

I think it brings precise and new informations about the club of Auxerre .

It looks like this page was entirely yours and that you don't support others coming

in your little privacy . I thing it's not conform to the spirit of Misplaced Pages .

It's strange but I think every page in Misplaced Pages is the property of a little dictator .

You have now the power of censure ! Congratulations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.127.189.242 (talk • contribs)

Salut et bienvenue!

Je suis desolé que vous êtes derangé.

Il faut lire WP:EL pour voir la raison.

Au revoir!

--John 17:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar Currency

The Act which establishes the right to issue notes is ongoing, and it is legally wrong to refer to it in the past tense, or so my lawyer says.

As regards what the currency is, the GoG London website says its pounds sterling, which is the notes say, how banks keeps accounts, and good enough for both me and Misplaced Pages. That is what the reference cited says, nothing more. The GIP as a seperate currency may exist in theory, but in practice you cannot buy one or hold a bank account denominated in it.

Wording that refers to 'Gibraltar Pounds' was taken from a time when there were notes in circulation saying that, Barclays Bank charged .25% to convert money in local accounts to pay UK bills. They were forced to stop the practice and the notes had to be withdrawn.

--Gibnews 00:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and I don't disbelieve any of it. However, on Misplaced Pages we have to be guided by what is verifiable, not what is true. Please bear this in mind. --John 00:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews

Hi. I just tried to improve the wording on the GIP so that it did not take either side of the contradictory references on the same GoG website, but Gibnews is now reverting my edits within seconds of me making them. I don't think this is fair, my edit should at least be allowed to stand for a while to see what others think, no? Am I being unreasonable? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You are being as unreasonable as anyone. However the current version does not assert that the currency in circulation is 'Gibraltar Pounds' which your previous revisions did. Its now simply a matter of the GoG updating the contradictory material on their websites. I believe John has got the point about the provisions of the Act being ongoing, so there is no need to carry on the discussion here --Gibnews 08:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles

I have just reverted some unnoticed vandalism by another IP. I didn't mean to say that your edits were vandalism. 74.36.25.236 16:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --John 16:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. So long as we're all fair and square. It was just something I couldn't help. However, I will try to make more constructive edits, or rather use the talk page before editing. 74.36.25.236 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit?

John, since you watch over RMS Titanic, I thought you might be interested in another interesting White Star ship...I just did a piece on the SS Suevic, and if you have time, it could use a copyedit. AKRadecki 23:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Piped links in dates

Hello John, can you tell me if the piped links in dates issue is settled? I've tried removing some, but User:Piotr Mikołajski has been reverting them and telling me to look at some discussion page which is all over the place. Thanks in advance. M Van Houten 18:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

See my post at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Readability. I don't think there is either a consensus or a policy-based case for keeping these links at present, but I would like some more input to that discussion before we make any changes to articles. --John 18:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Padraig3uk

Can you have a look at Padraig3uk's edits to Northern Ireland flags issue, List of Northern Irish flags and Northern Ireland? He is reverting edits without leaving an edit summary, as well as reinserting images not allowed under fair use. Is it just going to be the case that no one can edit these articles other than him? If so, then compromise will never be reached on this flags issue. Thanks Astrotrain 14:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain you have been trying to remove the Assembley logo for months, its use in that article is to represent the Northern `Ireland Assembly and its government, as for me not leaving an edit summary, I sometimes don't when dealing with you as you refuse to discuss changes in the talk pages and ignore the ongoing discussions there.--padraig3uk 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Titanic

I was adding inline citationss, in case your unaware its being considered for de-listing, so i was stocking up on references, and the unsurpassed luxury section reeks of POV, so it needs editing.

Article writing

Seeing as you're currently opposing me because of my lack of article writing, I would appreciate if you looked at this. I hope you don't mind me posting this on your talk page, but I know some people probably don't watchlist everything they ever edit. Thanks, R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with POV articles

Hello John.

I'm quite new to[REDACTED] and so far have not done anything much more complicated than making minor changes to articles. I came across Michael Gaughan (Irish republican) I thought it was fairly obviously rather one-sided in its content. I added some sort of POV template to the article and make a post in the talk page, as per wiki's guidelines. Most of the references in the article are POV in nature, and some of the barely related to what they are used to support.

How do I go about improving the article please?

Thank you Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that an unencyclopaedic article is allowed to remain, unidentified as being such, just because I'm too daft to be able to change it myself? Thanks. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews 2

Gunniog, can you have a look at this. User:Gibnews referred to myself and other editors of the Michael Gaughan (Irish republican) article as "rabid and others their running dogs". I consider that a direct personal attack, however, as its the "new me" and I am trying to avoid getting drawn into this type of conflict I asked him first withdraw it and apologise and I would forget about it. He deleted my messege, so now I am coming to have a word with you about it as you, Rock and Ty formally warned Gibnews here last week about it which he immediately then archieved.--Vintagekits 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As VK's mentor, I am aware of this, and other then the fact I'm his mentor and thus somewhat biased, Gibnews was told that if he made another attack like the one he did previously, then he would be blocked. That is beyond the pale, and deserving of at least a short term block, correct? SirFozzie 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Gibnews has been helping me, my opinion is probably biased too. But I don't think that his comment was actually aimed specifically at Vintagekits.

I have, however, noticed that Vintagekits has suddenly taken to editing a lot of my contributions to articles. Nothing wrong with that per se, of course, but I must question his motive. He's probably taken offense at me attempting neutralise his article. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I am not going to comment on who the attack was directed at as I will let others work that out. 2. I am not sure what your point is, I havent edited anything across you at all and I have only edited pages which are already on my watchlist.--Vintagekits 18:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

See here for the edit you were looking for.--Vintagekits 01:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

Hi John, I could use a second opinion on something, if you have time. In the article Fetus in fetu, Una Smith has been repeatedly removing sourced material and/or the sources themselves. He seems to believe that for medical and scientific subjects, Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines of preferring non-trivial secondary sources doesn't apply, and that we should rely on primary sources. I have repeately explained to him our policies and guidelines, provided him with links to the appropriate places, but he either just doesn't get it or simply doesn't want to accept it. This is more than a content dispute, in my view, because instead of disputing the content, he's trying to discredit it by questioning and/or removing the sources, without providing sources of his own. This has come to the point that it is, in my opinion, blatant degradation of the article, tantamount to vandalism.

After yet another round of removing sources and sourced information, I left a stern warning on his talk page that removal of sourced information is not acceptable, and that if he continued, a block could be forthcoming. In response, he then dropped a complaint over at AN/I, where I've responded as well.

I guess what I need is two-fold...first, a quick review of my AN/I response to make sure I'm not overstepping any bounds. Secondly, if he continues to persist in the removal of sources, my opinion is that a block is warranted, but it would be inappropriate for me to issue it, as it would appear to be COI, so as my hands are a bit tied, I could use some help in defending the article's integrity here.

The irony is that this isn't even an article that I'm really passionate about. I resurrected it from a redirect as a place to merge some material from an AfD, and to bring a couple other stubs to. It just really bothers me that this editor is so willing to blatantly ignore sourcing policy and remove perfectly legitimate secondary sources, so I really see this as a case of trying to stick up for Misplaced Pages's sourcing policies rather than trying to defend and article, or content that I'm attached to.

I haven't dropped a bunch of diffs into this request, because I didn't know if you'd want to take an unprompted look at things. Diffs are great, but I don't want it to appear that I'm trying to sway the picture by how I present the diffs. On the other hand, if they'd be helpful to you, let me know and I'll provide some examples of what I'm talking about. Thanks! AKRadecki 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to you on User talk:Una Smith. Regards, Una Smith 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

As you seem to know alot about citing sources here on Misplaced Pages, I wonder what you think about a source on Siege of Dubrovnik article. The information came from a documentary which seems to be unavailable for viewing. If care to take a look at it im referring to the second reference. It doesnt seem to be a "non-free format" as you put it. Paulcicero 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --John 01:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Murder of the Rock

I gotta say I am very unhappy with this edit. The term Volunteer should be the only term used as it is the most encyclopedic, however the current agreement is to refer member first and then Volunteer, in the manner I have just done - please revert this. Additional each Volunteer was unarmed and as the SAS claimed they were planning a remote controlled bomb the it is important to also state that they were also not carrying this technology either.--Vintagekits 22:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I know they were unarmed at the time. Member/Volunteer looks poor; where was this consensus reached? One or the other is fine. We don't need to report a negative, that they were not found with a trigger for the bomb they were engaged in planting. We just report the facts, neutrally, and let the reader make their own opinion of them. --John 22:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons (not the only reason) that the Member/Volunteer form looks unencyclopedic to me is that in reality on Misplaced Pages neither term would be capitalised here; both of them being, and that slash.... looks naff. Sorry. --John 22:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion that "it looks naff" simply doesnt cut it - his rank in the IRA was Volunteer - hence it is capitalised as per norm.--Vintagekits 23:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Not on Misplaced Pages, I think. --John 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

They were unarmed and there was no remote control for the bomb that had not been planted at the time they were shot, however nobody knew that until afterwards and the ECHR report makes it clear that a radio device was anticipated. The verdict of the Gibraltar court was lawful killing and that remains, so to say they were 'murdered' is pushing a POV which is not factually correct. Claiming ranks for terrorists in plain clothes is a debate I'd rather not get into. --Gibnews 23:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that clearly shows your POV, John may agree with you also, however that is immaterial - we deal in facts not POV. They were unarmed and had no bomb when they were murdered without warning and without opportunity to surrender (as backed up by indepenent witnesses) so remind me who you consider the terrorists are! Anyway it matter not that you consider them unworthy of rank, the fact is they did hold it.--Vintagekits 23:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider them unworthy of rank, I would be happy for us to call them volunteers. Murder is a legal term whose use is not justified here. --John 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can ytou please explain why you are uncapitalising the term Volunteer.--Vintagekits 15:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (capital letters) dictates this. Just as George Bush is the U.S. president (although we can call him President Bush), volunteer does not get a capital in an instance like this. --John 15:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Other issues with your last edit include the following mistakes. 1. It was a fundraising mission - why remove that? 2. The "poiginant" section is taken directly from the TPC book, he uses that exact phrase so I dont see why removed removed referenced material. 3. the last obsequies and a funeral are two different things - again why the change when the references doesnt stated that he precided over the funeral? 4. The references did not state that his death "caused controversy in medical circles" its stated that it "caused controversy in English medical circles" - why remove referenced material. If you are going to start editing these articles please take more time and effort in doing so and I dont want to have to do this with every edit you make.--Vintagekits 15:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

1) A bank robbery was a fundraising mission? Seems too obvious to need saying. 2) If it is a quote it needs to be in quotation marks, with a proper attribution. It also needs to be spelled properly. 3) my mistake, I didn't know that, I thought it was just a fancy way of saying funeral 4) Again, a quote should be in quotation marks and be referenced so the reader can check it themselves. Your advice is likely well-intentioned so I do not take offence at it and I'll resist the temptation to give you any in return, for now. --John 15:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I find your suggestion a little nonsensical - the terms coming from a book - they are not quotes as if the guy is talking himself, its not a novel, its text from a book - are suggesting that every piece information taken from from every source it attibuted mid line and put in qoutes? The information is referenced from a reliable source and that is enough. As fer spelin mistooks - I'm not bodered about them as me spelin is sit. --Vintagekits 16:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)Nonsensical or not, that is how we work here. If it's a quote, it should be shown as such.--John 16:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I just said its not a quote - its text in the book.--Vintagekits 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if it is a quote from a book it should be accurately quoted, it should be made clear where it is quoted from, and the source should allow the reader to confirm for himself the accuracy of the quote. --John 17:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well its not word for word so its not a direct quote - the information is referenced so if you have issue with that then I suggest you either get a copy of the book to confirm it or get another source to contradict it!--Vintagekits 17:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the onus is on you to reference correctly and accurately any information you want to remain in the article. Otherwise it will be removed. --John 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to wind me up for some reason?? The bloody article is referenced - I've told you its referenced and I've even provided the pages. The book is freely available - if you dont believe the information I have taken from the book then get a copy. This is my last comment here on this as I am becoming annoyed.--Vintagekits 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to wind you up, no. It certainly isn't worth getting annoyed over. --John 17:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Gibnews Diff

(oops, signing) SirFozzie 01:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have given him a last warning for that; it is quite unacceptable. --John 01:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked: User_talk:Gibnews#Block. He's already had the final warning. It will help all editors concerned here to know that personal attacks on others are unacceptable. Tyrenius 02:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I realise I was superceding your post to him (and apologise for this), but I'd already said another abusive post would result in a block, after he'd been heavily warned. I also noted your statement of involvement (quite properly made), and wasn't in that position. Tyrenius 03:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine, I think we both did the right thing. --John 03:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

vandal block

Be my guest :).. I hadn't had a chance to see if he had any good edits SirFozzie 05:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

Hi John! I think I might just be a bit daft, but I'm wondering about this edit, where it seems as if some comments got removed. I'm just wondering if it may have been a formatting thing, as I know I've made similar mistakes when trying to comment on an RfA. Cheers gaillimh 20:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I I wonder how that happened? Thanks for letting me know. --John 01:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Template:Northern Ireland cities

Another usual edit war regarding the Ulster banner atthe above template. Thankfully it has been pretty quiet on the template from over a month as can be seen here from the edit history. However user:Setanta747 just added the UB. Its a relatively antagonistic thing to do and was always going to instigate a reaction especially as he was requested not to do that here and given a warning for edit warring here only three days ago. I removed the UB - he reinsterted it, Barry removed it, I then tried a compromise of adding the NI map and contacting him to discuss. However it continued and now I've been asked by him to stay off his talk page here. Can you please havea word as its not only imo distracting and disruptive. --Vintagekits 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Same again here.--Vintagekits 23:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

I replied to your oppose vote. Thanks Jaranda 02:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. --Caltas 17:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. --John 17:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Gripen crashes

Hi, John. My reason for having the date tags as headings is that with only linebreaks to increase readability, the text will appear as a massive "chunk". Don't you agree? After all this a listing with a given structure: the course of events leading to the crash, and the explanation (if any). Now it seems that all crashes are one single event. And what is your point in naming the pilot? I know who it was, too (although it's spelt Rådeström). LarRan 21:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you want to know about a specific crash, having the dates as headings will directly lead you right. LarRan 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone's Moving your page

Hey John, someone called user:jorby ma has just moved your page to a page called user:ohbaby, I had helped you undo it and warn him never do it again. ✬holmes.sherlock✬ Holmes.sherlock 03:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your user page

Astrotrain and myself had reverted that comment by a earlier vandal but User:Holmes.sherlock reverted my edit and then proceeded to mess about with your page, I then noticed he restored the page but left that comment in, I think you should querie him as to why he reverted my edit and what he was trying to do.--padraig3uk 07:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I did. --John 14:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image query

I'm not sure of the right place to mention this, but you were on the Michael Gaughan page and I see you're an administrator.

This image is claimed to be released into the public domain by an editor. However I don't think he took it. The actual site (www.ross.navy.mil) seems to be down at the moment, but you can see the picture here (second one along) which is the exact same size as also. A cached version of the site makes it clear it's a US Navy site. With my limited knowledge of copyrights that may mean the actual image is public domain, but until the site is working it's impossible to verify the status and I very much doubt it belongs to the editor who uploaded it. Please advise, thanks. Scalpfarmer 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've dropped them a note. I know the editor already. --John 14:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it as it wasn't being used anyway. --John 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at the remaining ones he uploaded. This is a re-scaled version of this. Where's the best place to report any future problems with images please? Scalpfarmer 02:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've deleted it. Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems would be the place in future. --John 03:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I'll go there in future. But to avoid red tape on this occasion, his last two "public domain" images can be seen here, so will need deleting as well I assume? Scalpfarmer 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) No, thank you for yours. I'll just delete them. Shame, I was holding out for the hope that he/she would have contributed even one genuine picture... --John 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

War

Who are you to say what is and what isnt a war?--Vintagekits 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vintagekits, nice to see you. War is a legal term. If you can find a reliable source that calls the NI troubles a war and calls IRA prisoners POWs I'll gladly revert that one. Until then... --John 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Glady - maybe you should discuss these thing instead of your usual tactic. regards.--Vintagekits 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

, , , , , , - more if you want!! Slainte!--Vintagekits 23:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see in the BBC link (the only one I looked at) any mention of POWs. "Your usual tactic" seems rather uncivil. --John 23:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you are trying to bait me into being uncivil you are doing a good job - I suggest you read more than one link in future.--Vintagekits 23:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm just doing my job of trying to keep Misplaced Pages NPOV. There was no mention of POWs in the RTE or the BBC stories; I'm not now clear why you sent them. --John 00:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The links prove that there was a war, they were imprisioned by the enemy during that war, therefore POW's.--Vintagekits 01:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I see. That just isn't how we work here though. See WP:NOR. --John 01:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No OR used, I've provided the links.--Vintagekits 01:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The links show that some considered the Troubles to be a war. There is nothing there that says IRA prisoners were POWs. That's OR at that point. --John 01:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want a we read of the Third Geneva Convention if you think what I have said is OR.--Vintagekits 01:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Irish Nationalism

My user page has been rewritten as you requested.YourPTR! 02:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:holmes.sherlock

Well, I wanted to go to your talk page and leave you a message, then I saw your name changed to Ohbaby instead of John! I then saw the history, and knew it was user:jorby ma. So, I helped you undo it and warned Jorby Ma not to do it again or I will ask and admin to block him. Thanks for your really kind attention.Holmes.sherlock 04:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:deletion

Well, sorry, John, I thought I put it in Ohbaby's page. Sorry.Holmes.sherlock 05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV - July 2007

The July 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer

I noticed you changing the capital V’s in Volunteer and would like to know why? I would suggest you read The Volunteer uniforms, weapons and history of the Irish Republican Army 1913-1997, by James Durney. Volunteer is always spelt with a capital V. It is also abbreviated to Vol. Regards --Domer48 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Lower case "v" should be used for the time being." (Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage) and "Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." (Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (capital letters)). See also User talk:Vintagekits. --John 19:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mairéad Farrell POW category

user:Domer48 keeps re-adding the POW category and I believe has also broken the 3RR on the article Mairéad Farrell.

Thank you. Biofoundationsoflanguage 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've warned the editor about edit-warring. --John 19:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you take a look this then he made please? Firstly, dead reference links shouldn't be removed. Secondly, that is not neutral editing. After removing the dead reference, a "fact" tag has been placed on the part about them being unarmed and trying to surrender. However the parts about, for example, the Semtex being found in a car Farrell has keys for hasn't had an "fact" tag added. Surely if he's going to remove references everything that was references needs a "fact" tag adding, not just picking and choosing parts? That is not neutral and fair editing in my opinion.

And John since you are involved on the article, is there a more neutral opinion we could call upon? --Domer48 19:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:List of administrators/Active. --John 19:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You should assume good faith. Nothing I do on[REDACTED] is designed to mislead people or push a POV. I removed a dead reference and replaced it with a citation thingy. I could've just removed the whole lot, but chose not to. Biofoundationsoflanguage 19:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to bicker with you, I actually try and avoid new editors like you because so many turn out to be socks of RMS and its a total waste of time and energy. Anyway why did you only ask for a citation for them being murdered while unarmed, but no other piece of information which is not sourced by a reference?--Vintagekits 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither of you should bicker about it, especially not on my talk page. Please take well-considered arguments framed civilly in terms of our core policies to article talk and try to improve these articles. Thanks. --John 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please try to work productively with each other rather than bickering about fact tags. --John 19:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello again --John, is this just a wind up or are they serious. If it is the former, it’s in bad taste, if the latter its pure provocation. Rather than respond I felt it only right to get your opinion first. --Domer48 23:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Leave it with me Domer. --John 00:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Domer's just added a warning about my "vandalism" of the article on my talk page. Obviously I have deleted it. Unlike him I've broken no[REDACTED] rules in remove the POW category from the article, have I? Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not in removing the category, and not in itself in removing the messages. However your edit summary "silly comment, removed. I don't take comments from hypocrites seriously" is a serious breach of WP:CIVIL. Please don't. --John 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello John, I left this message on Biofoundationsoflanguage’s talk page and then this one. Both of which were removed, with the following edit summary . Now is this to be tolerated, or should I just react to this provocation.? --Domer48 11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with removing the category, and your use of a boilerplate vandalism warning with an established user was unwise. More to the point that was definitely not vandalism. Neither of you has behaved well. It would be better to try to listen to one another's points of view and try to compromise. --John 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

John it is you who dose not seem to understand. Your tone and manner for one, as administrator. “I will ensure that you receive a break from editing.” That’s sound just about reasonable! Now I suggest you report me to an admin, if you have a problem with my attitude. I consider this particular disscussion closed, as no reasonable conclusion will be reached. --Domer48 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

POW category

John, I have been looking at this dispute and remain somewhat unclear about the POW category. Certainly from looking at the contents, it seems a bit of a dolly mixture of cases. Is there any Wiki policy you can refer me to on this? The more I look into this the more unclear I am as to why MF is not allowed be included.(Regards (Sarah777 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Not a policy, no. But see Talk:Michael Gaughan (Irish republican)#POW status where User:Rockpocket makes the seemingly reasonable suggestion that we use Category:People convicted on terrorism charges instead.--John 23:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather a dramatic difference between being described as a POW or as being "convicted of terrorism" I would have thought! Anyway; surely being "convicted of terrorism" has no bearing on becoming subsequently a POW? So BOTH categories fit the MF case. There is no need for an either/or here. (Sarah777 03:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

However, being convicted on terrorism charges is verifiable and neutral, unlike the contentious criminals and POW categories, which is why I prefer it. --John 05:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how buying into a Government construct (they abolished a pre-existing political prisoner category) in a time of rebellion can be characterised as neutral. There is enough evidence that the British establishment regarded it as a "war" (especially when seeking to justify extra-legal killings); so clearly, enemy operatives captured and imprisoned by them were "POW" by their own logic? (Sarah777 18:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

That's an arguable point of view, but it is not a neutral point of view. If we could find reliable sources indicating that anyone outside the republican movement regrded them as POWs, I think this argument would have more of a leg to stand on. --John 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are taking this "no synthesis" notion beyond common sense or it's original intention. If the Govt regards itself as "at war"; takes prisoners from the enemy and incarcerates them - they are POWs; no synthesis or references required (and I'm not saying there aren't any). To exclusively us British Government terminology, even when it contradicts the logic of their own position, is simply pushing British State POV, and is not neutral. Also, is there anyone outside the British Establishment on record as saying they were not POWs? Their release after the GFA en-mass coperfastens the case that they were POWs. (Sarah777 18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

(deindent)But the British state never did acknowledge it was at war with the IRA, instead treating them as terrorists. To make an analogy, Andreas Baader would doubtless have regarded himself and the other RAF personnel as prisoners of war. The group had after all declared war on the German state. Nevertheless in the absence of reliable sources recognising the existence of such a state of war, and in the interests of the NPOV policy, we do not call him a POW. --John 18:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The British state has frequently acknowledged that there was a war on! They can't have it both ways like Bush and Guantanamo; the fighting in Afghanistan was a "War on Terror" but the enemy captives are not prisoners of war!! This isn't WP:NPOV, it is an absurdity!

Would we deny that Vietnam, Gulf One, Yugoslavia, Iraq were wars, just because the Western Governments involved never declared? (Sarah777 18:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Believe me, I thoroughly sympathise with this point of view and I agree with you about Guantanamo. Unfortunately perhaps, governments do have a tendency to "have it both ways". I repeat, in the real world, the IRA prisoners were not given POW status, and so we cannot call them POWs. Whether they ought to have been granted it is another and quite interesting discussion, but not one which I feel will advance the discussion about the use of the category. Best wishes, --John 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To reply to the second comment, the Falklands War is an interesting case in point. War was never declared by either side. I would say that as both sides treated the captured enemy as POWs we would be correct in calling them POWs. Pragmatic, real-world considerations have to drive our usage here, not our wishes for a better and fairer world, however commendable these wishes may be. --John 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry John. Black is not white until some Western Government decides to concede the point. They are to be categorised as POW's based on the facts of their imprisonment; not on the grounds of what the British Government "granted". It is irrelevant what one of the warring parties called their prisoners if the facts all clearly support the definition "prisoner of war". So, to use your terminology; in the real world, the IRA prisoners were POWs, and so we must call them POWs. Whether the British Government ought to have granted such status officially is another and quite interesting discussion. Slán agus beannacht. (Sarah777 19:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Then should the category also be placed on Baader's page (my example above) because some regarded him as a POW? Best wishes to you too. --John 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In June 1971 Reginald Maudling, the Conservative British Home Secretary, announced that the British government was now "at war with the IRA". Any similar announcements by the German Govt. re Baader Meinhof? (Sarah777 20:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Not that I know of. I wonder if people (Tommy Chong for example) imprisoned in the War on Drugs would be entitled to call themselves POWs too then? --John 20:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

John - you gonna keep firing these balls at me till you find one I can't hit out of the park!! If Bush says he is "at war" with Mr Chung then I certainly think the situation needs further exploration. For example; against FARC in Columbia it definitely is a war (or the Narco-Warlords in Afghanistan). But would Mr Chung reckon he was engaged in a "war"; or just in the drug business? (Sarah777 21:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

It's a knotty issue, you're right. All the more reason that the language we use remains scrupulously NPOV and conforms with neutral reliable sources. Chong, incidentally wasn't in the drugs business; he was convicted of selling drugs paraphernalia, not drugs. --John 21:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

John, I guess we both believe in the same rules of the game - "you can't enter a camel in a horse race". It's just that so many camels look like horses to you -:)(Sarah777 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Well, indeed. I don't think the talk discussion is going anywhere; it's just about time we called in outside help. Let's see what some others think. --John 21:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

State terrorism by the United States

Hi John, you just reverted my recent move even though there is no opposition to it. Please reply on my talk page. east.718 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:State terrorism by the United States#Title—There's ten editors for and none against. east.718 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks! east.718 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to the titanic article

I'm not sure if you're aware but the titanic article was recently stripped of its featured article status. I edited out some sections of the article because they're, well, worthless. The lead is far too long, so i condensed it, the titanics turning ability and lifeboat sections are far too detailed; what does the change of name of the third sister ship have to do with anything; also i wasn't aware that the legend of the titanic's band was a "long term" effect of the sinking. Im sorry but i thnk that the article could be condensed, also the sinking is practically a stub, it should be more detailed instead of having a main article tab; after all thats what made the ship infamous. Don't you agree? --Hadseys 21:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I do agree. However I think the changes need to be discussed in talk first. --John 21:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would second John on that (the need to talk about it, first). For instance, the renaming of Gigantic was a direct result of the negative publicity of the Titanic sinking, so it is relevant. Also, you need to consider that some of this was talked about in length, for instance, the reason the sinking section is a stub is that it used to be extremely long, making the article too long, so after much discussion it was split off. Yes, things need to be fixed, but as I've stated on the article's talk page, discuss changes before making them, and if the change is drastic, draw up a draft in a sandbox first and solicit input. You'll find that things will go much better that way. AKRadecki 00:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• So, we getting it featured again? As for the renaming of britannic the article doesnt explain why the negative publicity affected the name of theother ship. And the disaster section has turned from super lengthy to almost a stub; given that that is what made the titanic notorious, i'd say that was unacceptable --Hadseys 11:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there; thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. This is one of the penalties of being an admin. --Anthony.bradbury 00:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Mine is locked at the moment for just that reason. Best wishes, --John 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

protection is an obvious option. I tend to feel that leaving the page up attracts the vandals, whom we can than indefblock. Certainly I feel that I attract more vandals than most admins do. But that,s ok; It's a bit like flypaper. --Anthony.bradbury 00:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just looked at your userpage. I knew you by your previous username. --Anthony.bradbury 00:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I got fed up with people making jokes about the beer, and when I saw this one was available I grabbed it via the usurpation process. --John 01:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Walkerposter.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Walkerposter.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Hi John, regarding the reason for my block, I have started a conversation at WT:IWNB#Misleading category changes. Stu 18:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Ottawaman

I noticed your activity here . I think this guy is back at Michael Ignatieff. See the recent edit history before the protection. Is a range block in order again?--Strothra 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Williams (Irish Republican)

You just can not help yourself pushing your POV can you . There is an ongoing discussion and this is how you behave. --Domer48 14:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Williams was a member of PIRA? What planet are you on by the way? --Domer48 14:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Planet Earth. That was a rubbish edit you made. Please do not post on my user talk page again. The problems which you and other POV-pushers have created and perpetuated will be solved by people who care about Misplaced Pages more than pushing a sectarian POV. Thank you. --John 16:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)