User talk:Jza84/archive16

Can of worms...

I actually don't think it is such a can of worms - but it certainly quite an odd thing not to mention if you are going to speak about the other constituent parts having national sports teams. The fact is, football aside (which has a story all of it's own), NI and ROI usually compete as one - be it cricket, rubgy, hockey, basketball, ... --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm mindful that I don't want us to present the Republic of Ireland as one of the countries of the United Kingdom. The point that was agreed on the talk page was that we mention that the 4 parts have national sporting bodies - not that we'd present extended prose on Northern Ireland.

We have to be careful, rannṗáirtí, with language too. By 'usually' do we mean, more teams, or more often, or more supported? What time frame have we measured this in, and how does that help the reader of the article learn about the countries of the United Kingdom? The republic of Ireland is, also, mentioned elsewhere in the lead.

We then have another can of worms of mentioning things like Great Britain at the Olympics and the British and Irish Lions.

Can we not agree to use the version I wrote (which does have an extended and visual footnote), and that I understood we agreed on the talk page? It is my plan to expand that element into a section on the article. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure why the Countries of the United Kingdom‎ article mentions the Northern Ireland cricket team at all as it's not recognised by the International Cricket Council (or at least it's not a member). The Ireland cricket team represents ROI and NI and has been playing for over 150 years; the Northern Ireland cricket team was concocted for the Commonwealth games and played once (and most of the players played for Ireland cricket team such as Kyle McCallan). Nev1 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was a bad call on my behalf that one (sorry!). I think Norn Iron football team is more appropriate here though. I'm confident that it hits the spot. It is a minefield though. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Football is the exception to the rule and indeed has a history all of its own. (Both FAs in Ireland fielded teams called Ireland and drew from the same pool of players until FIFA ruled otherwise in the 1950s). In all other cases the international team is Ireland. It's quite backward that we should present the one sport where it is not so as being norm. It may be the norm for ENG/SCO/WAL but it is not for NI.

The purpose of the sentence, I presume, is to be to show how the countries of the UK do actually operate as "countries" in a traditional/cultural sense. For better or worse, NI (with ROI) is the exception. If the point is important with respect to ENG/SCO/WAL then the point is important with respect to NI.

I don't know where you are referring to on the talk page. (Also, you can just call me RA.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we need provision for all this. I don't disagree with you at all, it should be said, I'm just really conscious that this article is something of an 'idiot-magnet'; if we get it wrong, we face a lot of unwanted trouble.

Wouldn't something at the end of the lead section-where Ireland is mentioned again-be suitable to mention all-Ireland institutions and the question of British/Irish nationality? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry, I've changed it back.) Not really. If it's worth saying, it's worth saying right. The reason why sport is organised on an all-Ireland basis is the same reason that it is organised on a Scotland-basis (as opposed to a Republic of Ireland-only or United Kingdom-only basis). The point is the same one: Scotland, though no longer a "country" in a political sense, is a "country" with respect to sport. Ireland too, though not a "country" in a political sense, is a "country" with respect to sport. If you're going to make the point with respect to Scotland, you can't pretend otherwise with respect to Ireland/Northern Ireland.

For better or worse, in an article entitled "Countries of the United Kingdom," Northern Ireland will repeatedly crop up as an exception to the rule. That's just the nature of the subject matter.

Also, I don't think sport fits in the the all-island institutions, which are more traditionally political in nature. Though it may be worth mentioning somewhere in the article. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is quite interesting. I'd like to explore this a little more tomorrow and expand some of the main body of text along these lines. Something about the exceptions are worth mentioning. I feel that Cornish and Shetlander nationalism needs a breif mention - and I mean breif! Nationality is definately a target of mine asap. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

Can you semi-protect Derby Cathedral, Derby, and Wythenshawe for a couple of days? A user is IP hopping to insert unsourced information. Nev1 (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Poynton

While looking at Woodford, I strayed over the county line into Poynton. If you have a moment, could you take a look. I would value an expert's opinion. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I'm an expert (although I do like the term being used on this page!), but I'll certainly try and have a look at this. I'll have a general sift through as I don't know Poynton at all really; do let me know if there was something in particular you wanted checking? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had a blast, and added some pictures (there's quite a lot at Flickr). It looks in pretty good shape. Certainly some way of WP:GA, at least with the Education and Transport sections. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are not an expert- you produce expert results! Not GA maybe but it is a lot closer that on but Thursday night. Though it only seemed fair to leave some of the original text, initially... Thanks for the example of good practice. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

DrKiernan

Upon browsing the page's history I realised DrKiernan used administrator rollback to revert JackofOz's revert of his forgery of my signature. The admin rollback feature is to be used solely for "vandalism and nonsense", and misuse is grounds for revocation of the ability to use the tool. His use of the admin rollback indicated that in reverting the edit, he was acting in his capacity as an administrator, and moreover that he considered the edit to be vandalism or nonsense. Though I didn't originally want this to escalate, as I have repeatedly indicated, DrKiernan's ongoing bizarre behaviour, and now misuse of admin privilege, suggests that our trust in him as an administrator is misplaced. Would you be adverse to requesting comments on his conduct over at WP:RfC? Though an RfC doesn't lead to any sanctions, a condemnation of his edits over at RfC may compel him to act with more restraint in the future, or perhaps resign as administrator. Since you're one of two users who attempted to discuss the incident on his talk page (the other being User:JackofOz), your approval would be required for this. PS: The existence of User talk:DrKiernan/Note to closing admin also worries me. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, it's probably more trouble than its worth. Unless DrKiernan tops his eccentricity yet again with an edit to blow our collective socks off, there most likely isn't a need to escalate this further. I have to say I wasn't expecting this much drama when I first raised the notion of moving the Queen. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I barely know User:DrKiernan, and with trying to keep my attention on article writing, I really want to resist getting involved in a dust-up. To my knowledge, our (DrKiernan's and my good self) paths have never crossed, until the other day; I was just very very disappointed with his poor and blatently dubious decision making. I am, however, not as disappointed, but more troubled upon learning this user is an administrator (I didn't know). To be instigating polls (Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion) on a specific talk page against a long-standing convention -- and then to go delete a part of the convention he was involved with on that poll (still live), then to continue to repeatedly delete it against (another) administrator who cited WP:BRD, with consensus in abayence -- well, I certainly find that short of an administrator's standards to say the least, and would not even expect that of non-admin editors.

I happen to have no real convictions on the content, but the principle of editorial consistency and co-operation is important to me, other users and the future of the project; it helps promote Wikipedia as a professional body of work and keeps editors from enforcing personal preferences; it was my suggestion that the poll he started shift its focus to a discussion on the convention itself to enjoy a stronger vantage point. Wikipedia is not a play- or battleground, and looking at the talk page of the convention he was trying to delete, there clearly was no consensus to change it anyway. Regardless of any trickery (for want of a better word) DrKiernan my try, the poll is pretty void and null because as a decision making tool, they are deeply frowned upon in these situations (we have discussions, compromises, requested page moves etc etc). He should not be making administrative changes to anything on this topic now because it would be a conflict of interest and a potential abuse of rights.

I've no doubt he's watching; I'd urge him to rethink his approach, make some concessions (the view that opposes him has alot of validity, which he cannot simply quash outright), and be more co-operative, because he made a bad judgement. Another incident like this, and I would be the first to call for formal sanctions.

I hope that helps anyway. You may wish to use this diff in RfC, but presently, I don't wish to participate. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You guys should read Dr Kiernan's comments here. Parrot of Doom 13:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not instigated a poll. I instigated a requested move in the way outlined by the instructions at the requested move page. I have not used any administrative tools. The edit that Happenstance links to above is just a normal "undo" that any editor can perform. DrKiernan (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you kindly close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DrKiernan2? This is ridiculous. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox help

Template:Infobox World Heritage Site needs new parameters to allow a map to be added; Dudemanfellabra has come up with the necessary changes (see User talk:Dudemanfellabra#Infobox for details) but the page is protected and needs an admin to make the changes. Could you do the necessary? Nev1 (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Where are the parameters? I can see how the infobox will be pasted into an article, but I can't find the bit that is needed to be pasted in :S --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I think this is it. Nev1 (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done, sorry for the delay. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks for sorting that out. It did look odd not knowing where some of these sites are. Nev1 (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I happen to be looking at something that is related to WHSs. I plan to reconstruct the Architecture of the United Kingdom, after users decided to remove mentions of Scotland, Wales and Ireland and decide to move it to Architecture of England!.... Presently Architecture of the UK is a dab page!

I have User:Jza84/Sandbox3 as work-in-progress. I'd love you input if you get a spare moment. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm working Bodiam Castle at the moment I've got castles on the mind and I'm going to take issue with the statement that "with the "finest examples" [of stone castles] being found lining both sides of the Anglo-Scottish border". The castles along the border are nothing special and many survive poorly. Off the top of my head the most impressive castle in the North West on the English side of the border is Carlisle Castle, and it's an ugly sod. There are notable exceptions, such as Durham Castle, but the Anglo-Scottish border is far from the best example of castle architecture, not to mention the fact that hinterland was huge. In the late 14th century the Scots sacked Lancaster. The finest are the castles of Edward I in Wales (four of them are protected as a World Heritage Site). Finding something to say about castle architecture across the whole UK will be tricky because of regional variations. For example tower houses were mostly confined to Scotland, Ireland, and the very north of England. I've not got the books that take a wide ranging view at the moment (they concentrate on England and Wales) so can't really add much on that subject, but there might be something worth cannibalising the main castle article.

It can be difficult in articles such as these to choose examples neutrally, but I suggest looking at List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom; it contains quite a few places preserved for their architecture and the sources often mention international influence of a particular structure.

The article's structure is going to be difficult. Do you divide it by time period or by location? In castle studies at least, England and Wales are treated as a single entity because of the exchange of ideas and interaction between the two, and eventually the English conquest of Wales. If you choose by location, there's going to be some repetition. Nev1 (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly going to be a little tricky, but we don't dab topics like Architecture of the United States and Architecture of Germany (both federations, not unitary states).

I'm of the opinion that it just needs to give a little history, mention some of the styles, and then have four national histories at the bottom. I also think we can justify having a small gallery here too. My concern really is that if a child is asked to do a piece of schoolwork on British architecture, then, well, our editors have decided to wipe it from the face of Wikipedia. I suppose the same could be said if we broke the Architecture of England into the regions of England, and just have a dabpage, because of regional histories. I thought it was a sad call.

Architecture isn't a passion of mine, so the sandbox is just a "start" really. But the castles advice is certainly good. I think that will come in handy for Wales in particular. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Architecture of Wales

Although only focusing on one area of Wales, there has been a push on the recently revamped Glamorgan article, which has taking in architecture under the sub-title 'Buildings of note', under each time period of it's history. The article mentions standing stones, castles, manor houses, terracing, and then the Gothic revivial and industrial buildings. May be a good place to start rather than reinventing the wheel. Hope it's of dome help. FruitMonkey (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinion

Could you offer, or ask someone you trust to offer, their opinion on this dispute? I seem to be tearing my hair out over editors who want to add quotations from tabloid newspapers, without offering any kind of context or reason why such things are of value to the reader. I don't want this article to become a tabloid mouthpiece, but if these additions continue it will certainly become that. Parrot of Doom 15:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and have a look at this. I imagine that the users in question will dissipate in a week or so. Isn't there a convention somewhere stating that the red-top newspapers are not to be considered reliable? I'm sure I've read that someplace. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

London

The London article is being targeted by sockpuppets of Historian19 (talk · contribs) who keeps reverting to an old version. Could you semi-protect the page for about a month? Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Hope you're sure about not needing those tools! --Jza84 |  Talk  22:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nev1 (and you of course) are two of the rather few administrators I have some respect for. I suspect that Nev1 just wants a break from the burdens of adminship. As I've discovered, it's rather easier to ask someone else to do a job than it is to do it yourself. Added to which, if it goes tits up, then they take the blame. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha! Very true! Still, I get it wrong from time to time (and the recent break of mine allowed me to really see that). I respect Nev1 more than I respect myself. I'm sad he doesn't have the tools because he used them very well. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll ask for them back, and be given them, when he's good and ready. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Typical, as soon as I give up the tools I need them more than I have in the past three months! I think that the tools shouldn't be a big deal, so I had no qualms about giving them up. A break from the responsibility is nice though; I can still stick my nose where it's not wanted if I feel the need ;-) Nev1 (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Architecture of the United Kingdom

For a start I think this is the better of the titles; it links with for example Architecture of Germany, and then you won't have to get too embroiled with British influences abroad (which could lead to an article almost without boundaries). You have chosen to divide the article by the constituent countries rather than time/style periods, and I think this may work OK, at least until you get to the modern period, where I am not sure that there are distinctive national styles.

England: do you think there is a place for Elizabethan architecture between Tudor architecture and English Baroque? I guess you will be saying more about the Gothic Revival in Victorian England. Then there is the Tudor Revival and the Black-and-white Revival, followed by the Arts and Crafts Movement - so much to cover. Then in the 20th century Art Nouveau, Art Deco before coming to Modernism.

Scotland: I do not know much about Scottish architecture and you seem to be making a good fist of it. Wales: lots of Norman castles - perhaps in the lead you will include reference to the cluster of castles on the England-Wales border and in North Wales, as well as those near the Anglo-Scottish border. Not many distinctive large houses, but an there is an interesting history of the development of Welsh chapels; Jones, Anthony (1996) [1984], Welsh Chapels, Alan Sutton, ISBN 0-7509-1162-X gives a good account. Northern Ireland: I know nothing. Architecture of Ireland seems to concentrate mainly on the Republic, but does not completely ignore NI.

It's a brave topic and I wish you well with it; it has considerable potential. I shall be interested to keep an eye on its progress. (Trivial criticism - the first word is missing a letter!) Good luck. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

UK

The problem was that there were no references with the images. Now there are. So now your problem with the images is...? Welshleprechaun (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Those changes were not in personal taste, nor were they simply reverted as I added references as requested. You will find the rationale on Talk:United Kingdom. Perhaps you can explain there why you support their removal. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Kingsway Aerial Shot.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Kingsway Aerial Shot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It can probably go now. It wasn't accessable at the time, but probably is now. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Rochdale Town hall

Hi, I've started a discussion page for the article in the sandbox and left you a message there. Richerman (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You may as well try merging the page histories of your sandbox and the town hall article. Nev1 (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to do it, and/or if it would affect things like DYK? I deleted my sandbox but can un-delete. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It won't effect the DYK, the important thing is that the material is new to the mainspace. I'm not sure how to either, just that it can be done. Nev1 (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jza; now listed at DYK here – thanks for the talkpage alert :) It's possible somebody there might want to check the contribution history, in which case you may need to undelete the sandbox temporarily; I'd say it's unlikely though. Did we have any other contributors apart from you and I, Richerman, Nev and PoD? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rochdale Town Hall

On January 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rochdale Town Hall, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Saddleworth Viaduct, Huddersfield Canal.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Saddleworth Viaduct, Huddersfield Canal.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. bjh21 (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Church of St Leonard, Middleton

Hello, Jza84. I decided to reply here rather than clutter up my talk page! This church certainly merits expansion of the article and there seems to be enough info for a GA. The layout I use for church articles is a section on History, then Architecture with subsections on Structure, and Fittings and furniture, then External features (anything in the churchyard or immediate environment), and something on the Present day/activities of the church - plus where relevant, a section on anything separate or important enough to merit one. This seemed to work here, here, and here (hope I am not telling you what you already know). For sources, you already have Images of England, the Buildings of England series (Pevsner) has plenty of detail (the old vicarage seems interesting, too), this gives a bit of history. Getting present day stuff might be more difficult; the church did have have its own website, but it's down, details of services are here; this site can sometimes be useful, but not for this church; the Manchester Diocese Church List gives a bit more.

Neilston is an impressive piece of work. You have discovered the good church history site; your link to Historic Scotland is now dead - details of the listing are here but there is disappointingly little on the architecture. Good luck; I shall keep an eye on St Leonard's progress. Peter Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is awesome stuff - perfect for my means too! I hope to have made progress with this by the end of the week. I'll keep you posted. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Architecture

It looks pretty good so far, I have to say. It might be worth mentioning the philosophical basis of some of the developments, for instance the neo-classical revival was influenced by the Grand Tour sort of aristorcratic high culture (particularly Hellenophilia), while the Gothic revival was influenced by Romanticism and an attempt to evoke nature (particularly after exploring jagged mountain peaks, etc). For the Scotland section, it may be worth finding something from Edinburgh built during the Georgian peroid. That is where much of their most impressive stuff is.[1][2][3] - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for that. I'll probably use one of those photographs for the lead (I want to eliminate any calls of bias and have a 4-photo montage of "typically" British architecture - don't want people saying there is a NW-Anglo bias!). I'll certainly put more of the Hellenistic/neo-classical stuff in the main history of architecture. I'm not going to GA with this one, I just want to have a good B-class page that can genuninely help readers. The present situation of a dab page is unacceptable IMO. Thanks again though. I'll keep you updated. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm game to help where I can. Previous contributions include Buildings and architecture of Bristol, Buildings and architecture of Bath, Grade I listed buildings in Somerset (& its sub lists) etc. I would suggest also putting your request for help on Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites & Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture where lots of people with an interest may notice it.— Rod ^talk 18:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! I'm glad to have you aboard! The sandbox is totally free for you to edit - please don't think that because its in userspace that I'll be protective of it.

I will certainly notify those Wikiprojects. One thing I've tried to do is ensure that the article is not devastated by English-bias or overbearing hense the present structure; of course it will be central if not dominant, but the last version of the article was moved to Architecture of England!!! Also, I've just used some very very basic sources. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

East Sussex map

Hi Jza84, at Bodiam Castle's FAC Dr pda (talk · contribs) has asked what the source material for this image is. Now it's not something that's cropped up before on other FACs which use similar maps, so I'm stumped how to answer. Any help would be welcome (and if you know about the second issue Dr pda raised about redrawing images I'd be greatful for your input). Nev1 (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I can help! If you take a look at File:Greater Manchester outline map with UK.png, I was required to improve the description and verifiability of that image for an FAC too. Using that format, it passed easy.

I might have used something like this to trace maps.... but because of copyright, of course this isn't true. You can use it to verify the map though.

All the maps need to be redrawn using standardised, international standards, by a professional cartographer/graphicist, and in the svg format. I never wanted to draw the maps, and did so only out of frustration. It would be a massive task AFAICT to redraw every county, but I would support it. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. England has some of the best maps on Wikipedia. The problem with the maps of places like the US is that it's too large; settlements need to be put in context within a county, within a state, within the US which is too clumsy. England's lucky to have some well drawn maps, and leaves stuff like the map in Paris looking rather sorry. It would be a huge task to drawn some decent maps for Wikipedia and England would probably be near the end of the list, so Wikipedia should probably pay someone to do it (gasp!). Nev1 (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if someone like Mike Peel (talk · contribs) could attract someone (a student/university) to get involved on that front? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's worth making a suggestion, perhaps some of the proceeds of Wikipedia's fundraiser could be directed to getting something decent. Nev1 (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Rochdale Town Hall

Just because it's you ( ;-) ) I'm going to be pretty hard on this GAN. Having said that, it's easily at GA or thereabouts, so I'm just picking at nits really. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm quite enjoying it! Do your worst! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. I'm all out of nit picks. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad jokes

Terrible joke at the Scotland talk page, Jz. How could you! (:0 Jack forbes (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox UK place: Dublin

I've responded to your comments at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Dublin and I understand why people have strong feelings about matters relating to (or perceived to be relating to) national sovereignty. I hope you find my response to be constructive and good natured; my counterproposal is purely tongue-in-cheek. But I am concerned that, after receiving only one response to your original question (and a response that, like my own subsequent comment, was counter to your point of view), you stated that you "intend to remove this function". In the absence of any support for your comment, that intention would seem to be insensitive or even provocative in ignoring the preference for consensus when changing templates, and particularly so for a protected template as widely used as {{Infobox UK place}} and given the sensitivities of Irish geopolitics. Without prejudice to the development of any future discussion and consensus on the template talk page, I hope you do not intend to use your admin status in as cavalier a manner as might be inferred. — Richardguk (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He already has used his admin status in such a way. I've already stated that if he doesn't self revert I will take the matter further. You always get a few rogue admins around who think they own the place and don't actually understand how things work! Jeni ^(talk) 12:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I find that insulting and offensive. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just stating the facts regarding the situation, inflicting your personal point of view and using your admin powers to push it through. Jeni ^(talk) 12:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jza84. I think you knew quite well the likely opinions the three editors you specifically sought to give input (Y, WoD, M). I appreciate that you posted an invitation at the UK noticeboard, that would have been sufficient. Please do not canvass.

(In future, you may also consider following Jack Forbes' example and leave invitations notices at all relevant community noticeboards.) (Strike: just noticed the chronology of notices.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Only just spotted this. Thanks for the strike, my actions were honourable I assure you, and I'm pleased you noticed that. Regarding the 3 users, two were architects of the infobox and so are relevant to the discussion, the 3rd (Yorkshirian) is a user who I have locked horns with on many occasions, but who is interested in European geography. You may "think" I knew the opinions, but I assure you I didn't - how could I? (although to be truthful I expected any rational editor to agree with my points, because it is common sense, logical, neutral etc etc! The opposition is terrible). You ought to notice too that Warofdreams is a 'crat (effectively higher than an administrator), and one of the most respected Wikipedians going. Furthermore, I contacted about 6 wikiprojects for wider participation (surprise surprise all who answered the call agreed with my points.....). I can comfortably refute canvassing.... but find it odd when you seem to agree with my points, their points and the commonsense anyway. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Following on from your admin abuse, I have been left with no choice but to start an ANI thread here Jeni ^(talk) 12:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I had already self reverted though...!?.... I'd like an apology for your insults earlier still. I feel like you're just out to undermine me and abuse me. It was unreasonable on your part. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You chose to make the self revert after the threat of an ANI and the thread was started moments after you took the action. Your attitude in this situation still needs looking at and I won't be removing the thread. You will be recieving no apologies from me, you have abused your powers as can easily be discerned from anyone reading the talk page discussion. A bit of advice for next time though, don't steamroll edits through to suit your personal taste. Jeni ^(talk) 12:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is bullshit; it's intellectually feable; and I note, once again, against the values you lovingly dress up in pink bows on your user page. You have no idea what my motivation was to self revert (ANI is not a threat, it's a farse - a hub for drama queens and Wikipedians (not editors) who have no appreciatation of the matter in hand). How can you see inside my head? I reverted because I felt it right to do so. You have failed to produce any debate of any meaning, and without any evidence, so I say you are stonewalling a neutral, valid move. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Jza84, I'm responding after seeing the thread on AN/I. Your self revert was good. I appreciate you doing it.

I looked through the talk page discussion and agree that you should not have edited through the protected template against talk page consensus. Admin's don't have special authority to make content decisions. If you think the current wording is not correct then start a content RFC to gather broader comments. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Llanfair-yn-neubwll/Llanfair-yn-Neubwll

Hi Jza84, Skinsmoke left this message on my talk page and I was wondering if you could take the reigns? It's a fairly strightforward move and consensus has been reached here. Hope the infobox discussion isn't wearing you down. Nev1 (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this.... and..... it was, but I'm back! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for sorting that out Jza! Much appreciated. Sorry to see that Nev's given up his admin powers. He'll be missed! Skinsmoke (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK place

Hi - thanks for your message. I hope all is well with you, too. I've left a comment on the template talk page; although my view doesn't appear to be the same as yours, my opinion isn't strongly held, and I've also tried to express that. I'll keep an eye on the talk page, and see if it seems possible to do anything to help the discussion - do let me know if you think that I could assist with that in any neutral way. Warofdreams talk 23:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)