User talk:Jguk/Archive4

Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12

DYK

Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article International cricket in South Africa (1971 to 1981), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents

The heading was put there by Amir1 and just copied over, so I'm not going to blame anybody else for that. Still, I don't see any indications in that massive "jump on Rick" discussion that indicated that anybody thought I was acting in good faith. RickK 20:16, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Test Matches

I've had a quick look at this - which I enjoyed - and tidied up a few bits - and will look at it in more detail later - kind regards Brookie 16:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino

He moved that page four times. I warned him once and he moved it again. I'll unblock him, as you say, to "give him another chance", but if he does it again I'll reblock him. — Dan | Talk 20:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I only noticed half way through the unfortunate episode that he is a newbie. I will endeavour to guide him, and, in fact, I have chimed in to support him on a reasonable edit that he made at Monarchy in Canada to reduce any persecution complex that he might have developed. At the same time, I will keep an eye on his editing because he does seem to have a strong POV that he wants to promote here. Regards, Kevintoronto 23:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are trying to make the article conform to the MOS (along with a few other helpful copyedits), but in this instance, it appears that the MOS needs to be revised, not the article. Regards, 172 00:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MoS changes

I'm glad you want to work with me, but calling me a troll is not the best way to go about doing it. I've made a few clarifing edits to your proposed policy sandbox; I hope you like it. Let's talk and work this out together. Neutrality^talk 21:39, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Internet Explorer

Have attempted to resolve the issue of the history. The comparisons... I think there already is a browser comparison page, isn't there? - Ta bu shi da yu 20:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfortuneately, I haven't added this info yet... I hope to soon however! As I don't run IE at home I can't get a screenshot of a Japanese version... I might need to ask someone on ja I guess. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cricket

Hi there! I just wanted to say I really enjoy your articles on late 19th century cricket. I'd love to continue these. - Ianbrown 03:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pilot licenc(s)es

Can you visit Talk:Pilot licences again and let me know what you think? Thanks David Brooks 04:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AEJ Collins

Thanks for the update - where is the promotion listed ? Kind regards Brookie 21:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Brilliant - thanks ! Brookie 21:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: the FA promotions

Thanks - my connection has been dropping out so that got kind of mesed up. →Raul654 21:23, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Julius Ceasar

Please have a look at Julius Caesar (cricketer); I almost thought he was still alive! It needs a cleanup with equivalent metric measures. PS. On your user page you say you edit Britian related pages; isn't it supposed to be the politically correct United Kingdom related pages, rather than the island? Nichalp 20:02, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for...

... picking up on the posting error on "Space Race". After all that work, I might have had a stroke if I'd come to the "failed" sticker first. Sfahey 02:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

succession box

I added a succession box on Adam Gilchrist and will try to progress this through the list of Australian national cricket captains. Any help is appreciated. The Sydney riot is fascinating stuff, but there seems so little info on it around. I have to spend a bit of time in the Battye Libary in Perth in the next couple of weeks on another project, so I'm sure I can find some more tidbits while I'm there - they have a huge archive of historic reference material. I'm more than hapy to help with the 19th century articles but alas, my time also is very tight - I'm spending far too much time on this cursed PC as it is! All the best = Ianbrown 07:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

United Kingdom corporation tax

I took a look at United Kingdom corporation tax you posted on my page. I not really familiar with tax, but is this tax run on lines of the value added tax? PS 19% tax seems a lot eaten by the govt. Nichalp 19:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Say I have a company producing 1000 items and selling them for $100,000. (To simplify this example I assume I am in the first rung of the VAT chain, hence no earlier tax was levied on raw goods). If the VAT is @ 10%, the retailer pays $110,000 for my goods. I make a profit of $15,000 [output-input] on the $100,000. So it is this 15% that is taxed as corporate tax? In other words if the corporate tax is 20%; my net profit is $12,000? Nichalp 19:53, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan and Republic of China

Recently I have come across several of your comments saying that Taiwan is the common and non-confusing term for the Republic of China (ROC). In reality neither the province of Taiwan nor the island of Taiwan covers 100% of the territories under ROC's control. Using "Taiwan" to refer to the ROC is in fact confusing in the other way round. — Instantnood 21:42, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

I understand the situation of how the term "Republic of China" is unheard in some parts of the world. Politics is always something complicated. Territories of the ROC not covered by Taiwan as an island or as a province is substantial and is not negligible, and is relevant to many articles concerning the ROC as a whole. It's hard to comment if the ROC is a distinct republic, but it has maintained a stable existence with effective control over its territories for more than half a century, outside of the PRC. It's politics which makes the world using "China" as a synomym of the PRC, and denying the facts of China being separated and the existence of a separate government, as that's the prerequisite for having diplomatic relations with the PRC.

If we have to make a choice between avoiding confusions and accuracy, I prefer the latter, as I consider it necessary for an encyclopedia. — Instantnood 22:26, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood, you confuse Taiwan with Taiwan Island. Taiwan is Taiwan Island plus Pescadores, plus islands near Fujian. Ask those who live on those small islands how they would feel if they were to be returned to China. Exactly what some Taiwanese were willing to do if it would get China to stop threatening them, but those islanders were pissed as hell. Taiwan means the whole thing. Not just the island.--160.39.195.88 22:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you have contributed to discussion on this page you may want to comment here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Instantnood

Rastafari

BTW, I looked around, both at academic publications (theses and dissertations) and at Google and it seems that Rastafari is more widely used than Rastafarianism, with Rastafarians as the people. (see Talk:Rastafarianism#Looking_at_the_data). Thanks Guettarda 01:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MoS

I don't know why you're confused. Even though DCoetzee added a sentence to the text saying it was policy, and you added it to the category, that didn't mean it had become policy, and no one changed its status on the policy page. The only reason you weren't challenged is probably that no one noticed. So the status is not being changed or reduced. Also, please look at the talk page. Several editors objected to the idea that it might be policy, and if we asked for a broader consensus, I think we'd attract a lot more objections. I have a similar thing with Wikipedia:Cite sources. I'd like it to be policy; in fact, I think it's absurd that it isn't, because if editors won't cite sources, there's nothing to stop them from doing original research, which is policy, yet the thing backing up that policy is only a guideline. However, I know that lots of editors don't want it to be policy so there's no point in me trying to push for it. Even so, its status as a guideline doesn't mean it has no influence. You can't argue that the time for objecting to DCoetzee's edit has passed. That is never the case with Wikipedia, as you know. A small group of editors can't unilaterally declare something to be policy. That's just a fact: I'm not being difficult here for the sake of it.

I also don't appreciate you posting my name, and I wonder what the point of that exercise was. I have never given you my name, so I assume you got it from your friend Phil. Posting it once might have been an error; replacing it when I deleted it wasn't. You did something similar, though much worse, to Fred. It's bad form, of you and Phil. Please don't behave like that toward me again because I don't respond well to bullying. I'm willing to try to develop a cooperate relationship with you over the MoS, and other issues should the occasion arise, and to try to find compromises regarding our differences, but there has to be some mutual respect, and no games. Let me know if you agree. SlimVirgin 10:21, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Jguk- Thanks for encouraging meto make comments on the RfP cycle. Being a "topic" of an RfC has not been fun - being able to contribute ideas has make the expirience seem as if the RfP has had value. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 14:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams

Nice catch on CD - thanks for your alertness! - David Gerard 15:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree... I appreciate you letting me know! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tax

I think you missed my query above on the tax issue. Please let me know if my understanding is clear. Nichalp 20:22, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination on the tax. Nichalp 19:38, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Hi, did you make this edit to your comments? Just checking, because the edit was made by an anon. Noel (talk) 15:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peers

Hey - recently, we've been pushing for articles on peers to not include their middle names (unless it's very very significant - William Ewart Gladstone is an example of a non-peer whose middle name is used). Therefore, the article John Frederick Sackville, 3rd Duke of Dorset will be moved shortly to John Sackville, 3rd Duke of Dorset. It gets really annoying when you write out, for example, the full names of the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos. ugen64 05:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Riot of 1879

Wikipedia:Peer review/Sydney Riot of 1879/archive1 has some comments on it. Were you going to action those? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:32, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

United Kingdom corporation tax

Hi - further apologies for extreme tardiness is amending the article. I will look at it as soon as I can. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Transportation

I reverted you, see Talk:Transportation if you want to discuss. dml 03:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of sources referring to the Taiwan Strait islands as Taiwan

Since the advocates of the terminology "Republic of China" consider islands other than the island of Taiwan (esecially Quemoy and Matsu) significant, I am putting together a list at User:Susvolans/List of sources referring to the Taiwan Strait islands as Taiwan. Feel free to edit it. Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 18:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brian Close

Hello, fellow Surrey member: Having read your request for peer review I have just posted the following at Talk:Brian Close:

What a great article. I think that the relationship between gentlemen and players ('Close replied with "Thank you, Billy". Yet in those days, that was a mistake') needs a brief explanation here.

I cannot think of a succinct explanation myself (or I would have stuck one in).--Theo (Talk) 23:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Transportation"

Please confine your editing of my user pages to my talk page. In articles specific to the United States, please do not change American English to British English. Please also observe the style concerning first major contributor to a page. Maurreen 16:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CopyVio Tagging

Hi - I noticed you copyvio tagged He was a Crook, but didn't provide a source URL from which the material had been copied from. Whenever you copyvio a page, it's always extremely helpful if you can at the same time point out from where the copyright infringment has occured - be it book, newspaper, or website. You'll often find you can find out by just searching specifically for a phrase in the article, which I did for He was a crook. It's really helpful if you can provide copy vio sources... Nick04 22:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BCE one more time

I note that you have been visiting various articles and changing the dating format from BCE/CE to BC/AD. You know the rules stated in the Manual of Style (dates and numbers) as well as I do, so I hope there will not be a problem with this. This has been discussed with you before several times (ref. your talk page archives). Consistency is the rule. Authors of articles get to decide which dating system they prefer and the MOS asks that they be consistent. As others have told you, if there is one or a few uses of BC/AD that doesn't give you license to change a much larger majority of BCE/CE notations. Could you please be particularly sensitive with articles on non-Christian subjects in non-Chrisian regions of the world? Thanks for your cooperation. Sunray 04:07, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

You have been arguing that people don't understand the terms BCE/CE as long as you've been around Wikipedia. Several people have tried to explain to you that the terms are, in fact, well understood and that there are good reasons for using them. Nevertheless, you persist in attempting to expunge them. You recently reverted a statement that the terms were used in China. Despite the fact that the statement was proved to be correct, you continue to revert the terms on Chinese pages. You have done some good work on Wikipedia articles yet you destroy your credibility with this foolish crusade. What is your rationale for this? Sunray 08:14, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Perhaps I’ve got you wrong. It seemed to me that you were going around to various articles and changing BCE/CE to BC/AD. I used the term "crusade," one of the meanings of which is: "A vigorous concerted action to promote or eliminate something." That seemed to me what you had been doing.

Noted. I was not changing BCE/CE to BC/AD where BCE/CE was used consistently within an article (after all, I was only searching for pages that had both BCE and BC in them to begin with). As a bit of advice, which I hope you will take in a good way, it's best to avoid the word "crusade", which has pejorative meanings for many.

You said: “I made the articles consisent on a term that gives rise to least offence.” How do you square that with Wikipedia policy? As the Manual of Style makes clear, either term is acceptable provided that there is consistency within the article.

It's easily squared with MOS guidelines (which apparently, much to my annoyance, aren't policy). The articles I changed were not consistent on style. My edits made them consistent on style, and a style that is acceptable within those MOS guidelines.

You also state: “I don't understand what's objectionable about removing unsourced information inserted by an anon.”

Is that your understanding of the Wikipedia project? On the main page users are told: “anyone can edit.” It doesn't say everthing must be sourced. Like you, I like to see references and frequently ask for same when I am doubtful about particular information. But there is a bias on wikis towards editing and improving upon the work of others. That's improving, not removing. Most of the editors who have been around as long as you are committed to open editing, which has been described by Ward Cunningham in the following way:

• Like many simple concepts, "open editing" has some profound and subtle effects on Wiki usage. Allowing everyday users to create and edit any page in a Web site is exciting in that it encourages democratic use of the Web and promotes content composition by non-technical users.[1]

I stick firmly to the view that unsourced information which a user disputes in good faith (as was the case here) should be removed from articles. Had I thought the info relevant, I may have moved it to the talk page, as you yourself later did, to invite others to comment. Personally I didn't see it as relevant, so I just removed it, though in retrospect perhaps I should not have made that decision alone and just removed it to the talk page myself. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources.

Where do we go from here? I think you have many useful contributions to make to Wikipedia. However, if we continue down this path, it will take us both away from valuable editing tasks. Could we come to some agreement that would be acceptable to us both? Sunray 02:57, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

I think, and hope, that we both move on and edit harmoniously and in good spirit together in the future. Kind regards, jguk 07:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I accept your explanation, agree with the sentiment in your last sentence, and shall henceforth be more careful with words like crusade that have pejorative connotations. Here's a possible ground rule: Where an article has an earlier (i.e., first author) or majority use of BCE/CE and it is a non-Christian topic, that term should be the one to prevail. Could we agree on that? Sunray 16:25, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Brian Luckhurst

I removed the category English Cricketers because the cat English Test Cricketers is a sub cat of English Cricketers. I don't actually like this arrangement because for instance while Tony Grieg is an ETC he is not an EC but that's the way it has been done. I also question the link the The Times because you have to register for readership, not sure what the Wiki guidlines are for that. Bob Palin 15:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calcutta page move

There is discussion at Talk:Calcutta of a proposed move to "Kolkata". You may wish to contribute your thoughts.

RfC

The sharing at RfC seems to be over. I have made a response there. Please take a look. I do hope that with everyone's effort Wikipedia will soon be the best encyclopedia ever. :-D — Instantnood 21:06 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

Sarwan's arm

Yes, I did mean "of those tested"...  :)

And, my source is the Cricinfo article in the "links" section to Muttiah's article:

• ICC study reveals that 99% of bowlers throw

Thanks.  :) Dale Arnett 23:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Vaoverland - administrator

Thank you for supporting my appointment as an administrator. I appreciate the pat on the back this represents. It felt nice to read the comments during the voting. Please let me know if you see something I should be doing as admin, as I intend to be fairly passive unless it is clear I should do otherwise. Thanks. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Timeline of cricket

Hello Jguk,

At time of writing, I am on a wiki-break, but I saw your message. Anyway here are some websites that confirmed that until 1748, cricket was banned in England:

<Quotation>
"In 1620 Oliver Cromwell was denounced because he had participated in “the disreputable game of cricket”, and Cromwell himself later outlawed the game. It was not until 1748 when the Court of the Kings Bench ruled that cricket was a legal sport, apparently at the request of a group of cricket enthusiasts. So clearly the disapproval by the state is a further reason for the lack of documentation." <End Quotation>

Source: http://www.sca.org.au/laurels/cricket.htm

Regards
Squash 21:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

)

Maureen's RFC

Hi. I assumed that Maurreen, who maintained the page in Amgine's absence, wished the page be kept. Now that Maurreen is aware of the issue, I will now cease my involvement. Sorry for causing trouble, Vacuum c 19:23, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the miscommunication. By ceasing my involvement, I meant that I would stop reverting you. Vacuum c 23:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Lir is banned...

...so it is inappropriate to "for many reasons, I think we should honour Lir's wish to link to Lirpedia" when that "request" was done by evading the ban. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 01:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I do no think that we should link to a non-GFDL Wikipedia fork that illegally uses Wikipedia content. Snowspinner 01:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Trust me when I say it was not "well advertised". Please follow-up discussion on the RFC talk page. -- Netoholic @ 21:17, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Do not edit war over this. We are disagreeing and I do not see that you at all widely publicised this NOR received any comments from other than 3-4 people. This is a major change and should NOT be rammed in. We have time. -- Netoholic @ 21:23, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

it doesn't matter if I would agree with it or not. It only matters that no more than 4 people have even seen it. -- Netoholic @ 21:29, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

When someone notes an objection to a major change, the other side should at least consider that it is made in good faith. I understand you proposed this, and it may well be the best thing ever, but you have no right imposing this immediately. -- Netoholic @ 21:40, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

If you revert yourself immediately, I will assume you mean good faith. Otherwise, it seems you are just ramming these changes down our throats. -- Netoholic @ 21:43, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

I am sorry your heavy-handedness over this is probably overshadowing the value of your proposed changes. I will be reverting the page (unless you or someone else does), and I expect that you'll at least agree you are in the minority currently. Further revert-warring is unproductive and disruptive to this very important component of dispute resolution, so I hope that when the time comes, you won't continue to put back your version. -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Three reverts are not an entitlement. Yesterday and today, I have expressed my feelings and solicited opinions of others. Noone but you is pushing for this right now. If you revert me even once after I put the page back in normal working order, I'll ensure that the next RfC is opened against you for your bull-headedness. I am not acting "single-handedly". I have the support of half-a-dozen other editors who are expressing issues with your proposal. -- Netoholic @ 19:28, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Dude, when everybody else says we should go back, that does mean that we've decided that this should be done. I am sorry you are in the minority here, but we go by consensus. Redouble your efforts in bringing people and comments to your proposal, then, when you have more than 3-4 people's input, I will be happy to discuss this further. You are proving unreasonable, and not willing to see that you're disrupting the RfC process in the meantime. -- Netoholic @ 20:03, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

That template's insertion was not a suicide pact. I just couldn't find one that read "this page is currently a load of crap being pushed onto us by a single-minded editor". Stop being a troll, stop using the weakest technicalities to support your ignorance of consensus, and stop talking to me unless you are willing to LEAVE IT BE for a few days while -you- gather the support necessary for any change. We will not "experiment" with a page that is critical to the dispute resolution process. -- Netoholic @ 20:45, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Mmmm, so apparently discussing something fully on a talk page and reaching a compromise with all parties interested enough to contribute is not enough. I mean, where else would you look for support for a change to a page other than that page's talk page? Ah, I see now - I missed the Wikipedia:Netoholic has a veto policy! Mind you - my first edit war with Netoholic - I join a large club there - maybe I should award myself a barnstar:) jguk 21:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have a lot of balls to accuse me of failing to gain consensus on the talk page. Your sneaky proposal had the input of all of 3-4 people, and was linked as a side comment on three talk pages. I have more than that that have commented that the changes are premature.

If find your manner and insults repulsive. I would have been happy to discuss your plan further (now that I knew about it), but you've shown no good character during this. Throwing personal attacks and insults, even worse. -- Netoholic @ 22:00, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Sneaky? Discussing proposed changes to a page on its talk page? Well, I'm fed up with all of this, but hopefully William M Connelly's comment will hold some weight with Netoholic.

All of this seems very ironic to me - all I'm trying to do is argue against confrontation and towards resolution - but when the other person is unwilling to consider any form of compromise (even one he has added to the page himself) - it becomes impossible, jguk 22:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Allan Steel

The edit was not mine. The content was already removed when I added the categories. This is the third time I've been called out on something like this.. Xezbeth 21:08, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

rehash of UK CotW

Hiya, I've made a few modifications to the UK Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Week, and I thought you'd be interested in the new page and helping out again with it, as you have contributed in the past! :) Talrias | talk 21:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ministerial gender

Thank you for the information about the gender of the minister. However, it is considered bad form to edit another user's comments. In fact it isn't even a good idea to edit your own (which I had done minimally in anticipation of the fact that the minister might be female). Sunray 06:27, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

Correcting obvious mistakes such as someone's gender, or obvious spelling, grammar or punctuation errors (as opposed to differences in style) is, as far as I am aware, a time when it is accepted that you may edit other user's comments, rather than being considered bad form. But, since you have now told me that you wish your errors to remain, I will not correct them in future. Kind regards, jguk 18:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: the {{Taiwan-geo-stub}} stub

You don't have to agree with me, but u'd better respect the facts and consensus. — Instantnood 17:37, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. — Instantnood 17:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Your so called NPOV towards the issue is in reality heavily biased towards Beijing. — Instantnood 18:10, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to edit ...

I notice you've been going around removing lots of comments and templates re spellings to be used on articles, with the edit summary of "Everyone's welcome to edit this article, not just Americans / not just Austrailians / not just Britons" etc. Whilst you are correct in that - the more editors the better in some ways - it *is* the case that there is WP policy on spelling and so on relating to the location of the content in the article, and that is why these tags and comments were placed there. They do not require in any way that an editor must come from a particular locale. The 'Britons' by the way are in the north of France; you should have used 'British' if that is what you meant. I have reveerted a number of these edits or replaced the intention by a new edit. Experience has shown that edit wars have grown over spelling issues on articles and where there can be a clear-cut decision a hidden comment or template will make life easier for all editors. --Vamp:Willow 11:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

I agree with Vamp. After all, it's just a hidden comment. But you are right to point out that editors might be deterred by these spelling comments. How about the following compromise:
A short sentence like "Info for copy-editors: ..." could be added. SpNeo 12:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey Jguk, thank you for voting for me in my adminship nomination. I very much appreciate your support. Best, SlimVirgin 00:58, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey wanted to let you know i'm up for Adminship if you want to go vote. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alkivar  ALKIVAR™ 05:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My rfa

I'd like to point you in the direction of my RFA again and read my comment to your comment. I'm still waiting for PZFUN to verify what I have said, but when he does, I hope you will consider changing your vote. And thanks for voting. Inter\^Echo 12:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PZFUN has now verified my statement. Thanks for your time. Inter\^Echo 11:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He couldnt find the log, so the vote will stand. Sorry about not producing it. Inter\^Echo 15:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RFA and FAC

I've been thinking, applying for adminship is a lot like submitting a featured article candidate. Both require significant preparation, both are decided by vote, both allow for resubmission later, and the standards for both are continually rising. The only difference is that for RFA, there's no opportunity for peer review before applying, so people stumble into it without realizing that leaving off the edit histories for the past 1,000 edits probably hurt their chances. Rad Racer 13:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on my talk page - I think we are close in our outlook here. I think those who object to adminship requests on the basis of edit summaries are being rather anally retentive. It's all rather silly. I often make large contributions to articles to which I am the sole or major contributor (by a long, long way). Any edit summary I make for these articles is solely for my own benefit - and if I don't see the value of making one, I shan't. So I often make no edit summary.

Now, if an editor has a dozen messages on their talk page to make edit summaries because they're annoying other editors of the pages they frequent - then I can see why some may object to an adminship request. But if there are no such comments, then where's the problem? jguk 20:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I too like to have articles where I am the only contributor. The only reason I bother with edit summaries is for the sake of the RC patrol. I figured out that working the RC patrol kinda sucks sometimes, because I went to all this work researching a new page to see if it was legit, and someone duplicated the work and beat me to the redirect before I finished. I can't rely think of a solution to that, other than the inuse template. Rad Racer 22:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hi Jguk,

I would like to thank you for your vote of support and confidence for my adminship, it has been much appreciated. If you need anything in future that requires my attention, please do not hesitate to contact me. :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM

Damn BST/GMT/UTC confusing me and thinking it's April Fools day here already! Yeah, I was hasty getting rid of that entry and you were right to revert it - lets have some fun at least at some places if we can't on the main page! violet/riga (t) 23:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[2]: Funniest. Edit. Ever. :D Neutrality^talk 04:45, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

List of national leaders

Please see the Talk page before you delete entries. This revert war is ridiculous. ===>Follow-up: You've requested on my Talk page to refrain from personal attacks. I honestly don't see what I've written that amounts to a personal attack. All criticisms have been directed to your reverting and writing activity itself, and not your person. It's consistently frustrating that you refused to discuss your reversions for Western Sahara and Taiwan on the Talk page, and then you insist on reverting the Vatican without any kind of proof, only random assertions. I don't have anything against you as a person or a Wikipedian, but I do have something against your edits on this page, and your refusal to look for consensus or show sources for your information. Several sources can be cited for the current head of the Vatican, and you provide none when you delete it. That, to me, is childish, and there lies my accusation. While that may be construed as directed to your person, it's not - it's directed toward your standards (or lack thereof) when it comes to relevant and reliable information in this particular article. Please feel free to follow up this message on my Talk page, and/or e-mail me (koavf@aol.com) Justin (koavf) 21:02, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)