User talk:Joolz/Archive 001

Archive 001

3 October, 2004 – 31 August, 2005

previous archive — User talk:Joolz — next archive

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
Remember to use a neutral point of view!
If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkTroll 00:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

UK CotW: Licensing laws of the United Kingdom

Hiya, just to let you know that the article you nominated for UK Collaboration of the Week has been made the nomination. The scope is now the entire United Kingdom (from just England and Wales). I've created a stub but your contributions are of course welcome! The article is at Licensing laws of the United Kingdom, the nomination is at Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board/UKCOTW/Licensing laws of the United Kingdom. Talrias | talk 17:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Legacy Currencies

You say "legacy implies the currencies will be phased out". That is exactly the case. Not sure why you are removing the word legacy.

Hi there, this isn't the case for the Pound Sterling or Danish Krone, both countries have special exclusions from having to adopt the Euro, and therefore there is currently no requirement for them to be phased out, there is also no movement towards voluntarily changing over to the Euro. Furthermore, Sweden has no plans to phase it's currency out either. Ps: you really should sign your name! -- Joolz 22:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In that case, we could have footnoted the currencies of the two countries that have opt outs. The governments of both of those countries are committed to joining the Euro. The last opinion polls shows that a majority of Danes would vote to adopt the Euro. Parmaestro 22:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Footnoting would mean we include them in the legacy definiton and then exclude them. It's misleading to say they're legacy currencies. The governments are only committed in so far as 'when the economic conditions are right' (UK) and when they've had a successful referendum on the issue. It's much better not to have any confusion of mis-information by simply having the word 'other' used in place. In the currency section you can explain that (as I have done) 13/15 of the non-eurozone states are legally committed to joining the eurozone. -- Joolz 22:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hadn't seen that before. Just read that section.

European Union

Thanks for all your contributions. It's been great. I don't know if you are also interested in cultural and education aspects. I started some work on some stubs that hopefully can be used for a Culture in the European Union and Education in the European Union articles. Some of these articles are Culture 2000, Media Plus, EU Integrated programme, and the Socrates programme.

Thanks :) I don't have any particular knowledge on the EU's culture or educational programmes, but I'm willing to help out wherever I can. Have you considered a WikiProject for the European Union to help keep everything co-ordinated and organised? -- Joolz 12:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vlaams Belang

Hi Joolz,

thank you so much for your work on this article. I haven't yet looked at the article itself (lack of courage...) but from its history and its discussion page it looks like you're doing a more efficient job that I have done, and probably could do. Specially as i've grown tired of discussing with jvb... as you wrote, these discussions where mostly not fruitful. Also, it's hard for me to discuss (and to want to discuss) with someone whose positions look to me so outrageous and often just despicable. I'll probably stay away of [Vlaams Belang] for a undetermined period of time for my sanity's sake, but I appreciate your contribution.

--FvdP 22:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vlaams Belang II

Dear Joolz,

I’d like to thank you too for your work on this article.

On the other hand I think it’s better, for the time being, not to make any personal remarks about --FvdP . I would have hoped that he had done the same about me.

If you see things that can be improved (language, choice of words…) or private views that must be made neutral, please do so. Otherwise I would propose you to remove the not-neutral tag. I don’t think there is a factual dispute.

--Jvb – April 27, 2005

Hi, thanks, I agree that the article has definately improved, Ideally I would have liked to bring all parties round (including FvdP) so we can reach a consensus. Since there's no dispute about the article's neutrality I agree that the message should be removed. (Posted to your talk page too). -- Joolz 19:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article is indeed much more neutral this way. I am still not happy with the links, see Talk:Vlaams Belang. --FvdP 18:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiportal/European_Union

Are you interested in updating this page ? Parmaestro 10:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Constituency maps

The up-front reason for doing them the way I have is that the county maps are already there to be slotted in without any additional work, or cluttering up Wikimedia more than the subject, perhaps, warrants. I feel it makes a degree of sense in reflecting the way the boundaries are reviewed, on a county basis (at least where there are county councils, and "sort of" even where there aren't). As you say, some constituencies would be very small on a national map, those in Metropolitan areas would still be pretty small on a regional scale - and dragging regions in seems illogical to me as they pay no part in the review process or any other aspect of Parliament. Can we leave this as an open question until I've completed the details maps? - that's enough to have on my plate for the moment!--Keith Edkins 14:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fairtrade categories

I like the idea of Category:Fairtrade settlements, but I don't think that there is a need (at the moment at least) to have the other categories you created with it. As such I have proposed that they all be merged into the one category. If you want to express an opinion on this you can do so at Categories for deletion. Thryduulf 20:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CCF

Are you sure that CLS has a CCF? Seems a little odd...

James F. (talk) 23:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just for a sense of completeness, I'll answer here too ;) The list I worked from is located at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200001/ldhansrd/vo010206/text/10206w01.htm#10206w01_wqn7 -- Joolz 00:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, Welsh people arrive(s)

You beat me to it. User:Deb and I were talking about this page and what to do with it earlier (see our talk pages) as a consequence of trying to disambiguate the link to Welsh, and I have been making drafts off-line. Have you immediate plans to extend the article yourself or do you mind if I wade in? One thing I particularly wanted to do was include not just Welsh-as-an-ethnic-group but mention when the Welsh as a people might be said to have begun to form (When was Wales? and all that sort of thing; the various tribes we know about; Gododdin; Offa's Dyke -- I have been wading through Norman Davies' The Isles and John Davies' History of Wales too) and go on to some of the definitions these days: Grannygate (Welsh rugby and eligibility rules) seemed a very obvious thing to mention to me, for example. But before I plunge onwards, is this alright, or were you set on the "an ethnic group only" approach? I do personally feel there is room to say more than just that, but is that alright with you? --Telsa 17:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't work on it today as I am inbetween a rock and a hard place on another article but I will edit as the week goes on. Falphin 18:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re; MPs order

It was in the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies style guide, but I just noticed you've changed that too. Maltaran 10:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Categories

Thank you for your help; I was unaware the category tags were for articles only.

Collaboration of the week

I'm dropping you a note to let you know that The Seventies, which you voted on, became a Collaboration of the Week! You are highly encouraged to contribute whatever you can to the topic! Mike H 01:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Joolz, thanks for your kind comment on my user page regarding my RFC, I have since ceased all copyviolations and I have held my tongue quite considerably recently with regard to being goaded with words like "pig thig" and a "wikipedia tumour" by Ray Girvan who has been advised not to use such words but has yet made no compromise, see User talk:pigsonthewing, User talk:Raygirvan and User talk: Brumburger, I am wondering if you would kindly take a second look at this RFC as I have admitted my wrongs and despite continual accusations nothing is sticking and yet I am still getting hassle, I understand if you do or don't want to get involved further or even if you agree with the comments of Ray etc, I just thought you might see a different side also with other comments now relating to this subject. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nick Boulevard All the best, Nick Boulevard.

Thank you, not for your edits but for taking the time to read the page again. Nick Boulevard 3 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)

UK geography COTM

Hi all, July's collaboration of the month is Northumberland, which needs quite a lot more work than last month's. I've listed some basic places to start on Talk:Northumberland, and will get to work looking up the statistics this week. (If you're not interested in further COTM updates, amend your listing in the table on WP:UK geo.) Joe D (t) 30 June 2005 22:59 (UTC)

EU project

Hi there! I am new to wikipedia and would like to contribute to the E.U. section. I've already contributed an article on the Open Method of Coordination. Comments would be welcome (no one has bother so far - don't know if that is a good sign or not). Also, the article does not appear if I type open method in the search box - is that normal?

Generally I could contribute something on EU research policy and information technology. Hope to hear from you, --Daniel Spichtinger 6 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

List of MPs

I found the basic data on http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge66/ge66index.htm, and with a bit of sorting and formatting was able to load it fairly easily. Did the same for 1970 too. Data for other years does not seem to be so accessible--George Burgess 8 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)

British and Irish current events

I note you voted keep in the above page's VfD, and I was wondering if you'd consider helping to keep it updated. Thanks for your time, Steve block 21:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yet Another London Wikimeet

Heya Joolz,

As I mentioned on IRC, we're organising another London meetup, for Sunday the 11th of September; specifics still to work out, but it will probably be fun as ever, and involve a few drinks and a nice chat in a pub. We'd love to see you there...

James F. (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comments in article talk pages

Joolz, do not revert my removal of personal comments from article talk pages. Are you familiar with Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks? "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Personal comments have no place in articles talk pages. Any personal comment on any article talk page is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, those remarks with personal accusations qualify are personal attacks. Read the personal attacks talk page. Nicholas Turnbull's remark "your [...] are nothing but groundless attacks on Prof. Touretzky's name" is a personal accusation. Nicholas wrote "Can I please ask you to try to maintain a neutral point of view in future when writing articles, and not to use spurious reference sources when writing articles about individuals?" If the critic doesn't like my sources then that should be discussed without personal remarks or comments. His personal comments should have been sent to my talk page, not posted to an article talk page. --AI 21:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop removing "personal comments" from discussion pages. The people who have written those comments do not appreciate it, nor does it create a hospitable environment to discuss the article in. There is no policy, as far as I'm aware, that states that removing personal comments is allowed. For instance, on Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks (which is a disputed guideline, not a policy) clearly states "Pointing out that a user is violating a rule is not a personal attack and should not be removed". It can be considered quite rude and uncivil to keep doing this. Regards, Joolz 21:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please refrain from any further revert-restoring of personal accusations? His personal accusations are not simply "Pointing out that a user is violating a rule..." as you claim. I am not accepting vague allegations against me without presentation of evidence that my contributions are "groundless attacks" and my sources and references are "spurious". If I am acting contrary to Wikipedia policy, I expect more civil explanations of my violation with proof of my offenses. Until then, I will apply the applicable Wikipedia policy regarding personal attacks. We have spoken... --AI 21:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've plainly admitted that they're not personal attacks yourself by refering to them as "personal comments". A better approach to dealing with complaints about violating rules is to ask the user how and where you're violating the rule, rather than just removing the "allegation", this way issues can be dealt with. If you keep removing peoples comments on talk pages, the issues in hand won't get dealt with but tempers will certaintly rise, people do not like there comments to be removed. There is no policy which states that you can remove personal comments or attacks, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks is a disputed guideline, not a policy, some users may consider removing comments Vandalism. -- Joolz 22:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your opinion. I did not remove comments relevant to the article's dispute over "groundless attacks" and "spurious" references and sources. If you are not a Wikipedia mediator I will have no further discussion with you about this. --AI 22:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COBR....and legitimising existing inaccuracies

Please read the 'COBR' link before editing references to say 'COBRA'.

By simply reverting and asking for sources you just legitimise existing inaccuracies - unless you yourself can show reliable sources which prove your revert edit/the original information is right in the first place. It's not as if the link name was changed without the destination text being amended with plenty of explanatory information. It's an important point lost on many of us, and indeed highlights one of the great weaknesses of this resource.

If you need a source, search for 'COBR' here No10 site (right hand side, near top) and watch the results.

Hi there, firstly I don't think you can legitimately link to an article on wikipedia which you yourself have changed to read COBR earlier on today. Number10.gov.uk has twice as many references to COBRA than to COBR, please participate in the discussion at Talk:21 July 2005 London explosions. Also, it would be great if you could sign your comments with ~~~~ so everyone can see who you are. Regards, Joolz 18:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NewburyGraph.png

Hi, great work on the article by the way - where did you find all those results? I've added the others line to the new graph. I'm not sure which looks better though. I appreciate how it's probably easier to make using gnuplot but I'm not sure it's as asthetically pleasing. What do you think? Do you think this could become a featured article? Dmn / Դմն 01:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway to thicken the lines? That helps a bit. The biggest colour problems is displaying Liberal's yellow clearly. I tried different backgrounds, but I couldn't use colour as it looked either disgusting or biased. My suggestion would be a shade of grey - however I must point out I am red-green colourblind! Dmn / Դմն 01:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heteronormativity / LGBTI

Thanks. Your moderation skills were a huge help. I'm not thrilled with the compromise (as I think it's even more of a tangle of links for the uninitiated), but I'm pleased to have reached one, and will leave it as is (though it might have to be moved, pending the discussion that is raging on about the overhaul of the whole page, but I'll keep that wording in at least as prominent postion as it is, if not more so if I have any say)! -Harmil 13:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could help :) -- Joolz 15:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In follow-up to our discussion today on IRC, I wanted to let you know that I've completed the first pass of my edits to LGBT (AKA LGBTI), and I think it should now be an excellent starting point for pages that need to link into the community. -Harmil 19:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the LGBTI link alongside with the links to the seperate articles, which should hopefully accomodate both positions. -- Joolz 19:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hear your exasperation. Sorry if I have been a pain. Thanks again -Harmil 20:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're not a pain and I'm not exasperated :) -- Joolz 20:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Holland

Are you ...? Well anyway, because of your Username, I nominate you to start the article. ;-) hydnjo talk 00:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid i'm not ;) I've had a quick look and I can see his article is at Jools Holland (I know, with an s, rubbish way to spell it), I'll create a redirect from the other spelling, because I can never remember what it is either -- Joolz 00:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! After I saw your Username (London bombings I think) it reminded me of JH and was very surprised to find no article. Never even thought about the "other" spelling. Do you think that the names should be switched around so that article is ~~spelled~~ spelt correctly or is Jools correct? hydnjo talk 01:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jools is correct, his website is joolsholland.com :)-- Joolz 01:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You win the Edit Conflict. I was saying:

Nevermind, I found the correct spelling at www.joolsholland.com even though "Jules" gets twice as many Google hits as does "Jools". hydnjo talk 01:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Englefield/870

Thanks for your note. Ordinarily, I would have chased up the link but I was distracted, so I thank you greatly for doing that extra piece of work. Philip Arthur 01:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

African COTW

You showed support for the African Collaboration of the Week. This week Dar es Salaam was chosen. Please help improve it to featured-article standard.

Cast your vote to select next week's collaboration!

kmccoy's RFA

Hey, joolz, thanks for your support on my RFA. You somehow managed to vote at nearly the same time as the nominator. :) kmccoy (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been more impressive if I beat them to it, damn edit conflicts ;) -- Joolz 12:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jtkiefer's RFA

Hey Joolz thanks for your support on my recent RFA, I appreciate your support. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

EU data update

I put a link to the World Bank webpage in the little note about sources which is above the table. Hardouin 17:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry I missed that! Thanks, Joolz 17:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

help

who r u man? i wanna know ur name place, i want your help to creat and upload articles in discussion pages, with my user name linked can u help me? anazcp@yahoo.co.in +919847472802

[Anazcp] (Unsigned from 61.1.248.243 moved from User page)

UKCOTW

Hi Joolz. As you're away no-one did the promotion of the UKCOTW - so I have (and hope I've done it right). It doesn't seem to have appeared in past collaborations yet but I hope that's just a caching problem.. I've stuck the boilerplate message on nominators' talk pages so I guess you get one too:

UK COTW: Communications in the United Kingdom

Just to let you know, an article you've voted for, has became this week's UKCOTW - Communications in the United Kingdom. Thanks Secretlondon 09:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Vote-OK, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Func's RfA :)

oppose! (just kidding ;) Hehe, I actually saw the edit summary pop up on my watch list, Joolz. :)

Thank you for your vote, it was very much appreciated! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 00:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, if I need any administative tasks performed, you'll be the first I harrass ;) -- Joolz 16:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential election result by U.S. state

Hi,

I've watched your table for Connecticut. It really looks great. I'll try to do the same thing for NY, VT and NH. Feel free to complete the table (I use [1], but state election board website are maybe better (but very boring), by adding details about the other candidates and evolution of the vote by county between 2000 and 2004. Once again, thank you.--Revas 20:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox England place

I've posted a suggestion for improvement on the above talk page. Please let me know if you have any comments. Bhoeble 01:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Constituency infobox

Thanks, if you have time, a comment at Infobox standardisation would be appreciated. ed g2s • talk 13:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Constituency

Hey. I am a committed constituency anorak, and have been trying to add details to the Lancashire pages, where I have knowledge from living here and following the boundary change reviews.

If there are any newbie errors or other seats you think I can help out on, I'm more than happy to try.

Cheers dok 19:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Liam/Dok[reply]

Hey there :) There's a lot of resources on the wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies (you might want to see the progress page and the style guide – although that needs updating), it's also worth looking at other constituency articles such as Newbury or Cheadle to see what you can do with the articles (especially the references section which has lots of good resources in it) - I hope this helps! -- Joolz 11:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image in infobox bug?

Hi Joolz, you recently edited the article on St Neots, one of the changes was to move the location map image into the infobox. However, the map was not visible after your change. The strange thing is, as a test I copied the image code from the infobox and pasted it on the page outside the infobox and - voila - the image is visible in preview.

You might want to take a look, you also might want to check to see if this has happened in any other articles. (I checked Huntingdon for comparison and the map shows OK there.)

I've moved the St Neots infobox (see Talk:St Neots for reasons), but the map was broken before I made any changes. Thanks for your efforts in all things mappy and infoboxy :-) Chris Jefferies 10:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot to change the infobox version over to Template:Infobox England place with map, it's fixed now :) I'll discuss the placement of the infobox on the talk page. Cheers, Joolz 12:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joolz. If I'd known about the version difference I'd have fixed it myself! I'll think about your suggestions for placement. Chris Jefferies 13:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joolz. I've tried to use the template for my Farington article but it has obviously gone wrong. The technical side of the Wiki world is proving hard for me. Before I make similar errors for my other pages Goosnargh and Freckleton and so on, could someone help me out? Cheers dok 06:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I fixed it up :) - See my changes here. You might want to use the Template:Infobox England place though because it looks nicer (the instructions for use are at Template talk:Infobox England place and it's a lot easier and neater than the other infobox) - Hope this helps, 10:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

History of South Carolina

Hello. History of South Carolina is on Featured Article Candidates for a third time due to recent controversy. Because you commented on one of its past nominations, you may be interested in commenting this time at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of South Carolina. Toothpaste 19:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Watercolour Challenge, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Jtkiefer's RFA

Thanks for supporting me on my RFA. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Mount Pantokrator, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.