User talk:Jguk/Archive10

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

Sock

User:Amorpheous Snowspinner 01:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop following me around

Stalking is against WP:CIV. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 23:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Sarkozy

You told me to remind you about this article. David.Monniaux 23:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

list of lists of mathematical topics

Oppose This is just an index of some WP articles, it has no standalone value, so I don't think it can meet the featured list criteria, jguk 19:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"No standalone value"? A Berkeley statistics professor was telling me two months ago that he uses it as, in effect, a thesaurus. I'm not sure of the details of how he uses it though. Did you ever hear of mathematics before you saw the nomination of this list? (Most educated adults, including most university professors, have never heard that there is such a field, but I didn't think those would be the ones to express themselves first on this nomination.) Michael Hardy 03:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this is a list of lists not a list of articles. Obviously the list of articles is far too long to fit on one long page. Michael Hardy 04:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

false etymology

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. The etymology of AD meaning "year of our lord" is a correct etymology. The problem is inferring that the original etymology provides the current meaning. Maybe this is a "fallacy of etymology" or an "etymological fallacy". It's not a false etymology, though. Anyway, this whole argument is tiresome. Do you think we should refer it to arbitration so that they can state officially that they mean "never change an article if it is predominantly one or the other"? My feeling is to not really care - I prefer BC/AD, but if people want to write articles in BCE/CE, that is their prerogative, and both are fairly well known. But given the fact that there is no official policy to prefer one or the other, the only changes that should be contemplated are ones changing an article predominantly, but not entirely, in one format, to be consistent within the already dominant format, or ones where no format is clearly predominant, in which case the editor making them consistent can do what they like. In the context of large scale overhauls of articles, it might also be acceptable to defer to the editor who made the overhaul. But HS is simply being obstinate and difficult, and this kind of thing should be unacceptable, especially when you got an arbcom ruling for essentially doing the same thing. john k 06:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Cricket World Cup

I see you removed the "future sport" tag from this. Personally I have no problem either way, but I note that it's a standard inclusion on all the other future sports event pages I've seen, so I expected it would make sense to include it here too. -dmmaus 05:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday

I'm guessing: your birthday is coming soon. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category removal

Hi, just noticed that you've removed the categories Famous people and Heroic people which are so POV from the pages of Gandhi and Mandela. In fact, I'd just written to User:Wallie, the originator of these categories, to list them for deletion. He replied and doesn't seem to have got the point. was wondering if u may want to drop in a line to him, --Gurubrahma 10:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think that Mandella and Ghandhi are Famous/Heroic, you are free to remove them from the Category. I just tried to include some non-Americans. But you guys have removed everyone, and are now trying to remove the categories themselves. I did not realise that you as a "Guru Brahma", may have a special interest in the subject. Wallie 14:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Categories

I see that you don't agree with me, but thought you would remove everything anyway. I think that you would be annoyed, if I did the same to you. It is this sort of behaviour that causes upset. I tried to include everyone fairly in these categories. If I had just concentrated on American famous people, there would be no problem. Wallie 10:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for confirmation

Sortan, please confirm what other WP accounts you edit under. Many thanks, jguk 16:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask? Sortan 16:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you could list under what ips you've edited under? Sortan 18:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you misunderstood the question. What ip addresses have you edited under (ie not logged it)? Sortan 18:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbReq against you

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jguk and date notation. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 23:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jguk, FYI I restored the arb case title, please do not rename it anymore. Beginning the title with Briangotts who is only tangentially related to it and who was not even notified is unfair to him and confusing to others. Also, note how other cases on the page are titled. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 01:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Paisley

Please read the article. There is already a section explaining that Paisley claims title to Doctorate, but that the Bob Jones University is not acredited. It was altered by User:Wallie along with some various other Pro-Unionist stance POV edits to the article, and changed from the original text I restored, to one that gave the impresion that his claim was undisputed.

When giving an honorific, only one honorific must be used. We have to chose one for this, so in the intrests of the most balenced POV, we have to use the least disputed title. Since Ian Paisley's claim on a Doctorate is significantly disputed, but his claim to Reverend is not, then we must consistantly use Rev. as his honorific. Please do not use the Dr. honorific, as this will confuse the reader. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 18:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(added to Barberio's talk page) Barberio, thank you for your comment on my talk page. I thought I was reverting this change, which placed the existing Dr in quotation marks, which is, to my mind, entirely inappropriate - we either have the Dr bit, or we don't - we don't add it and then put it in quotation marks. For some reason your edit did not appear, and I got no edit conflict message. Kind regards, jguk 18:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, sorry for being a bit harsh at you then. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 18:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*, someone has reverted it again. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 09:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian XI ODI cricketers

Basically the image is too large on my browser, so it impinges on the table. Either

cutting one line of the the image caption (which is four lines long, at present) (for example, to Muttiah Muralitharan, who has played in all four ACC Asian XI ODIs),
adding another line to the the intro, or
adding an second blank line between the intro and the table

would do the trick. I'm not sure if there are other, less "blunt force" ways to alter the layout (using <div> tags or something...my knowledge of html is pretty basic). Guettarda 21:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The caption was still 4 lines on my screen :( I tried inserting an extra blank line - it does the job on my screen, but I am afraid it will look bad on other screens - what do you think? Guettarda 13:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TItle

Please don't keep changing the title of the case. The case is about you. It's been brought against you by a number of editors. It's about your campaign to get rid of BCE, but it will also broaden out to include your campaigns regarding other style issues. I deliberately kept away from your case the last time, though I felt it should have been extended to include the edit warring over other stylistic differences (spelling, serial comma etc), and perhaps if it had been, there would be no need for this second case. The bottom line seems to be your efforts to impose whatever you're personally familiar with on the rest of the world as though it's a global standard. I'm sorry to write to you in these terms, Jon, but your behavior over these issues causes a lot of bad feeling and at some point it has to stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how much this is affecting you. Please take my advice: make a deal with the people who oppose you and walk away from it. When the arbcom sees how much you've been reverting, even if they share your POV, you're likely to face sanctions. You're a good editor, and this isn't worth it, because we have a shortage of good editors and WP can't afford to lose you. Slrubenstein's proposal failed, so Fred hasn't suggested it be endorsed: he's just supporting the idea that people should be allowed to decide on the page whether to change if there's a clear reason to do so. It's just like the British/American English thing. I know what it's like to feel deeply frustrated about something you care about: there's an issue I care and know a lot about that I can't even keep on my watchlist, because it's edited by people who know nothing about it — I daren't even correct a spelling mistake in case I get sucked in and never emerge again.

Please give this some consideration. If you were to reach a deal with Humus, Sortan and the others, I'm pretty sure they'd drop the case and you could walk away clean. I'm not saying this because I use BCE, by the way. I'd be saying it anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 has been accepted. Please place evidence at /Evidence. I see no basis to recuse myself. Fred Bauder 13:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz

Gjuk, an answer awaits you... Ian ≡ talk 15:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richards is the answer to Q.16. Your turn. Tintin 16:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naming featured list candidates in the edit summaries

(Copied from Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Naming candidates in the edit summaries.)
Hi! I visit the featured lists and featured list candidates once in a while. In the meantime, it would be great if actual list names were mentioned in the edit summaries of the FL and FLC during nominations and promotions, in addition to "promote one more" etc. Could this be arranged? --Eddi (Talk) 14:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC) (post at project talk) / --Eddi (Talk) 01:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC) (repost at user talk)[reply]

Temporary injunction Jguk

1) Enacted on 14:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Based on continued editing solely for the purpose of removing BCE/CE notation from articles (see [1] [2]), jguk is prohibited from changing or removing any BCE/CE notation from any article, or making any edit intended to achieve that result, pending resolution of this matter.

Portal:London

I see you've swung the proverbial axe over at P:L - I must say I think you were perhaps a little heavy handed... But what we can establish from this is that consensus for a generic portal format will be extremely hard to achieve, and perhaps it would be wise for allow formatting to remain autonomous and only demand content from the centralised structure...

Anyway, perhaps you'd like to contribue at Portal talk:London - I've created a discussion because I'd like to hear the views of the other people who helped build the page in its original format. Methinks this could be quite an interesting debate...!

Deano 23:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1971/2 South African cricket season

Hi. As the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Northern_Transvaal_v_Natal_B_1-4_January_1972 was just closed, I was asked by Encephalon if the articles could be substed very soon. As there probably won't be a lot happening to those articles over the next month or so, would you mind if those were substed in now, and the match pages redirected? Sam Vimes 17:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 case. →Raul654 03:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jguk, just wanted to let you know that I have no personal grudges against you and am looking forward to our future collaboration. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 21:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hashan

I'm not sure quite what the answer to this one is. I've drawn 2940 results for "Hashan Tillekeratne", including that from the BBC (http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/ england_v_sri_lanka_2002/sri_lanka_profiles/1931131.stm), and 6760 for "Hashan Tillakaratne", including one from Cricinfo (content.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/player/50744.html). Do you have any slightly more official sources on the spelling? I don't really want to be adding the wrong spelling and I'm not sure which is more correct. Thank you. Bobo192 09:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

jguk said: I think that, as with all people whose native languages don't use the Roman alphabet, there are a number of transliterations to the Roman alphabet that may be used. We have a similar issue with Ganguly. As long as we have a redirect, I see no problem.

That's what I hoped, I was hoping that things would work that way. There are several different ways that the same person can be transliterated. I think we may suffer the same problem with Esmeijer and some others.

In which case, what shall we redirect him from? Is it even necessary to include a link to Jacob-Jan Esmeyer as a redirect to Esmeijer? Bobo192 19:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

test => Test categories

Per your comment at Wikipedia talk:Bots, if there is already consensus that the categories should be "Test" and not "test" then I will happily set my bot to make the changes, but can I first confirm that capital T "Test" is accepted as correct throughout the cricket community. thanks Martin 14:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz again

Your fleeting answer to Q34 has been spotted and the next question is yours. Well done! Johnlp 22:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK

Thanks for the info. I won't make the meeting, but will try to have a good read of the relevant pages. -- sannse (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then what IS the right abbreviation for "United States?"

I've been editing Wikipedia for a couple of years now, and have generally used "U.S." in the belief that it was the recommended abbrevation. If it isn't, what is? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is what the U.S. government itself recommends and uses, and is less likely than "US" without dots to be mistaken for a common word. Please do not remove this from the guide without consensus. Jonathunder 19:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Username change

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Changing username#jguk.. Regards — Dan | Talk 03:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked User:Jguk. as an imposter, who I thought was created to change AD to CE and get you into trouble (the account has made such edits). I headed here to give you the heads-up, but I've just seen the above and I'm now thouroughly confused. Let me know if I've done the right thing? --Doc ^ask? 00:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nayanakantha

Only about two weeks late did I realize this, but thankyou for noticing my cock-up re:Dharshana Gamage. With so many articles in my wanted list, I accidentally copied this guy onto the wrong profile page. Sorry I'm so late with this one, but thank you. Bobo192 06:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case Instantnood 2 closed

The Arbitration case on which you commented, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2, has closed. The Committee's decision is as follows:

Instantnood, Huaiwei, and SchmuckyTheCat are all placed on Probation for topics relating to China for a year. This means that any sysop, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. In doing so, the sysop must notify the banned user on their talk page, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article from which they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit them to continue to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy. In addition to this, Instantnood is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week, and reminded to make useful edit summaries.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005

I altered the answer to at least one of your questions, if you'd like to know. I also made comments you might be interested in @ Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005/Straw_poll#No_more_appointees. Cheers, Sam Spade 22:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the b'day wishes. I shall be returning the wishes a few days later. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the ArbCom candidates

Jguk --

I copied your "questions to all candidates" to candidate Jayjg's questions page, but he has been declining to answer them and trying to attribute them to me. I've since deleted them. Would you care to go there and put them in yourself? Thanks.

Marsden 15:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:ROC local elections, 2005

Hi jguk, a bit of feedback on the issue. Being a native Taiwanese person, I personally have no problem with using "Taiwan local elections", and my recent conversations with other Taiwanese people contain the phrase "the election in Taiwan" and not "the election in the ROC"; the latter is technically correct, but I'd feel unnatural in using it in everyday conversation. Wikipedia also has articles like Political status of Taiwan and Legal status of Taiwan, which don't contain "ROC" in the title. Shawnc 15:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date notation

Hi Jon. I am sorry to be writing this. However, in my opinion, [3] is definitely a violation of the ArbCom ruling. As such, I have blocked you for three hours. Please don't do this any more. Furthermore, may I strongly advise you not to get involved with date notation any more. It is only going to create acrimony and harm you in the future. Just write some articles about cricket and leave the date notation stuff. It is the only way that you are going to be able to stay in Wikipedia, apart from anything else. You may feel that you are giving into trolls. You aren't. You are allowing the encyclopaedia to progress in the best way possible. This is not trolling behaviour. Once again, I am sorry. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 16:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]