User talk:PJB

PLEASE SIGN COMMENTS. REPLIES WILL BE ON YOUR TALK PAGE. I DON'T CHECK OTHER PEOPLE'S TALK PAGES, SO REPLY HERE. PJB

Welcome

Welcome to wikipedia. Thanks for your edits on Colchester and comments on the talk page. For future reference, it's usually considered best form to sign comments on a Talk page with four tildes, which automatically puts your username, time and date of the comment. If you want to add a section on a talk page it's the same as any other page - use two "equals" signs either side of a heading. (Three equals signs makes the next level down of heading, etc.) Regards, Jamse 12:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UTC is Coordinated Universal Time - basically the same as GMT, so it's just part of the time stamping that will appear automatically if you put four tildes (~) after a post on a Talk page. Jamse 13:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "My Watchlist" in the top left hand corner of the screen after you've logged in is the right place to look for changes. If none are showing up then it might be that you've not got any pages on your watchlist. When you're logged in, along with the usual tabs for an article (Article, Discussion, Edit, History) you should see either "Watch" or "Unwatch" - if it says watch, click that to add it to your watchlist; if it says unwatch then it's already on your watchlist. Under "My Preferences" (top right corner again) you can set on the editing tab whether you want pages you edit to be added to your watchlist by default. One other thing - when you're looking at your watchlist you should see somewhere near the top "you can display and edit the complete list" - click on the link there to see what's currently on your watchlist. Hope that helps. Jamse 16:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages for Newcomers

When I first signed up, someone posted these as a list of pages that are good for newcomers:

I think you'd particularly like the tutorial pages.Jamse 16:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Woodroffe

Congratulations on diving in a writing an article! I've swung by and made a few changes to keep it in the style of the wiki (disambiguating links etc), but generally good work! One thing you might want to check out is the thing about the title of the Judas Priest album. The second link (Sad Wings of Destiny) seems to go to the right article, the first (Fallen Angels) goes to a disambiguation page which doesn't seem to have anything about Judas Priest. Jamse 18:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error Message

No, I've not come across that one. Sometimes wikipedia's servers just seem to get stressed out. If it doesn't clear up in a day or so you might want to ask about it at the help desk: Wikipedia:Help_desk. Reagrds, Jamse 17:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che

I hope one day you'll learn that Che was an evil murderous man and that communism will never and can never work beyond a few true believers or true believers with guns. (Gibby 17:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! Feel free to keep asking questions, and good luck on what seems to be very speedy progress to being an excellent wikipedian! Jamse 19:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're No Marxist

"Democratic Kampuchea

   * Executions/harsh laws, oligarchy, lack of development and racism
   * Failure to establish Direct Democracy and public services
   * Stalinist style government"

"Bolshevism/Marxist-Leninism

   * One party rule means nomenklatura class (which is un-Marxist)
   * Perpetuates a Degenerated workers state
   * Influence of party in politics not only prevents popular participation (and therefore the view of the people), but also creates a new elite
   * Immune to change
   * Centralised government
   * Far too much military spending, not enough on society
   * Far too Bureaucratic
   * Unelected leaders
   * The USSR's non-official (yet obvious) policy of Russia-comes-first

"

Total bull shit, please read the Manifesto....centralized government is a must, a Vanguard Party is also a must. Che was a Stalinist through and through. Please learn the first thing about Communism, child.

- I might be a little less harsh than this person above, but I generally agree. A centralised socialist stage is entirely orthodox Marxism, whether or not it is cool to proclaim in today's liberal world (well, centralisation in the economy is apparently acceptable as long as it is controlled by private finance capital responsible to no government - under the cloak of internationalism - and which steal money from all States). You cannot generally side with Bakunin and then say you are a Marxist. There is anarcho-communism but not anarcho-Marxism.

Furthermore, your criticisms of Stalinism are very poor. If you are worried about political violence and oppression, you might judge Maoist China more harshly than the USSR, but I guess you are taken in by the avant-gardisme of cultural revolution. If you are worried about bureaucracy, this was less bad in the Soviet Union than in Imperial or Capitalist Russia. If you are upset by their foreign policy, maybe you should realise that all States have to be interested in defence and self-preservation just as I have to be interested in food for survival, whether or not others also need it. The USSR was under attack immediately after its formation and indeed it made several compromises with capitalist powers to preserve its existence. It would be childish to put its national resources all into a push for world revolution right after a disastrous CIVIL WAR. By the way, it was TROTSKY who wanted to fight the losing war with the Germans longer and who wanted to use the Red Army to sack Warsaw. He was a great militarist and if you read Soviet literature from the 20s, it was not only Stalinist propaganda that described him as a would-be Bonaparte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.236.113 (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luke!!

Hello fellow scientologist!! (Add sarcastic and superior smile).

When you leave messages go somwhere else then come back about 5 minutes later (dont stay on the talk page or you wont see new messages).

Check out my [[P

Hey Preston!

Had a look at the Patrick Woodroffe article, good stuff! I am afraid I am inclined to agree with the comments above about communism, but each to their own I guess... Apart from if you are not a scientologist, which should be an offence punishable by death, after all it is the one true (and, of course, most logical) faith.

Happy wikipediaering Luke

We wrote something at the same time and my message was destroyed...did you put down an IP address? It didnt come through.

PJB 17:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I didnt mean to offend with the scientologist gag...I would be mortally offended by being called one too!!

PJB 17:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed the whole destroying thing... Why would I be offended about being called a scientologist, surely anyone with half a brain can see that what they preach is the absolute truth? No brother scientologist, we should be smug that those other heathens are so ignorant. BTW, how does one sign with an IP and time stamp?

Too true.

To put an IP address etc put 4 tildes (~) after your message

PJB 17:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers 84.67.21.7 17:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow it really works!!! 84.67.21.7 17:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't cha gotta User Page? Get one, there fun (untill they're vandalised...)!

PJB 17:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the crap...errr...I mean truth...on the Scientology Page?! That most illustrious of religions, which as ever guides our minds towards a steady path to salvation (with a small fee, mind), is such a money making scheme for bored Hollywood actors. By the way...Amish. Check it out.

PJB 17:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off now (Simpsons are on). See you tommorrow 84.67.21.7...or should that be high sientologist priest Luke. Bye.

GET A USER PAGE!!!

PJB 18:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I still haven't got round to getting a user page, have been rather busy with geography, but I am confident I will get one in the near future. Having seen your political compass score, I was inspired to retake the test myself, and thought you might be interested in the results for a means of comparison:

Economic Left/Right: 8.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97

That means your economics are more left than mine are right... and I thought my ideas were extreme!!!

84.66.239.5 20:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Woodroffe

Hi there. The article is looking very detailed - very impressive to have taken it to that stage in such a short period. If I was to suggest one thing that would really make the article shine, it would be more citations / references - those are the things that help an encyclopaedic article show its provenance, and act as a jumping off point that people can use to really get into the subject. Regards, Jamse 19:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CITE. Regards, Jamse 14:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjourno Luke

Hey Luke,

Im writing this from college!! Nice Political Compass results...well, I suppose you'd like them. A little differant from my hefty revolutionary left!

PJB 12:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing...rumspringa, its that thing I said in college (about Amish youth going around 'discovering' the English world).

Dont forget about the User Page!!

May Xenu go with thee my Scientologist son (but only if you pay a small donative of...oh...say, $1,000 per month.)

PJB 16:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A User Page (at last)

Well, you will be happy to know that I have, at last, created a user page. I am afraid it is rather lacking at the moment, but give it time... Oh whilst your waiting I think you will find Last Thursdayism rather entertaining...

Algenon 17:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. No wonder we never seriously discuss politics; we would end up ripping each other's head off! I read your discussions with KDRGibby, unfortunately they were rather brief, looked like they were shaping up nicely. He seems to think that anyone who has a view opposing his own is moronic, so I am inclined to agree with your description of him...

Algenon 20:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che

Yeah, those guys will do anything to smear Fidel and Che. UF 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User-boxes

Wow, it looks like you have done some serious redecoration since I last visited. I have got to get me some of those user boxes. I am a little bit disappointed that the black hole stuff has now gone... perhaps it was itself swallowed by the black hole! Your critiques of Marxist theory were very…interesting; I am very impressed that found anything positive to say about Maoism or Pol Pot's regime... Enjoy the rest of your weekend, all the best

Algenon 23:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very good point about Big Trouble in Little China, but remember the decline of pirates since the 19th century is the root cause of global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters. Thus by spreading the message that pirates are cooler than ninjas, I hope to convert ninjas into pirates and thus solving these problems.

Algenon 16:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather embarrassingly that was indeed a typo... how stupid do I feel? It's a good job I did not put a userbox indicating that I am a native speaker of English. Thanks for pointing it out.

Algenon 16:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De Es Schwertberger

Hi. The article's looking very good. The few (minor) points I noticed:

It'd be good if you could get a full date of birth. (Happy birthday, by the way!)
You refer to "Techniques of the Old Masters". Does this just mean that it's in the style of the Old Masters, or is it something a bit different? If it's just saying that it's in the style / technique of the group known as the Old Masters, then I'd say that the quotes / italicisation aren't needed around the whole phrase, and it'd be worth linking to the Old Master article too.
In a few places you've used quotes and italicisation. I don't think you need both. I think the italicisation is probably more appropriate than the quotes. E.g. "...to his own purposes in a selection of work he called Ideas of Truth, and his portfolio The Missing Weapon, which was shown at the Gallery Bernard...".
Some people have said recently that too many links to arbitrary years is unnecessary. I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject either way. Maybe consider linking to the relevant "in art" years, e.g. "1942 in art".
The relevant article for tha area of NYC is at SoHo.
Did you mean Reichenau?
The 1980s period seems like a bit of an arbitrary split. Unless this was distinct period in his productive life, maybe it should be rearranged into sections that more accurately reflect periods?

Generally looking very good - keep up the good work! Jamse 19:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you can't find a date of birth - someone else can fill it in later.
Re the "19xx in art" pages, I just meant if you wanted to leave in the year links then they might be better directed to "in art" pages rather than main years.
I've tweaked the headings for the references, links, etc. The standard heading across wikipedia seem to be "External Links", "See Also", and "References", so I've changed to those.
I've also removed Category:Artists from Woodroffe - you don't need it because he's already listed under a couple of things that are sub-categories of "Artists".

By the way - do you ever try to cross your eyes and squint at around midnight on 28th Feb, to see if you can spot your birthday sliding down the gap between 28-2 and 1-3?

Cheers, Jamse 22:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've set up the redirect on De Es. To see how it's done, visit that page, then at the top of the article you should see "Redirected from De Es" - click on that link and you'll get to the redirect page. If you edit that you'll see the format. Jamse 17:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a bit of an inclusionist, so I would tend towards adding it all in. If it is too long for the rest of the article then it could be farmed off to a separate page (e.g. List of works by De Es Schwertberger); if you went down that route, then I would see no harm in picking out the top few most important works in a List of notable works section, with a {{main|List of works by De Es Schwertberger}} tag at the top of the section, which outputs this:

Regards, Jamse 17:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bloke I was telling you about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duke_Nicholas

195.195.85.42 11:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers PJB

Happy Belated Birthday!

It was sometime between yesterday and today :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 12:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotection

Hi PJB,

I imagine you may have already figured out what sprotection is, but since noone answered you explicitly, I guess I should. Sprotection stands for "semi-protection." Regular protection prevents an article from being edited at all by anyone except admins, and admins are bound to make only certain necessary edits, like posting notices about the article.

With semi-protection any logged-in editor can edit without restriction but very new editors and "anons" (not logged in with a username) can't. This is because certain articles attract anon vandalism from time to time, so sprotecion stops the vandalism frenzy. A few articles, such as George W. Bush and Jew, are such an easy target for infantile minds that they need to be sprotected more or less permanently. -- Cecropia 16:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers PJB 17:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Hi,None of the userboxes are actually mine - there's a few groups of them somwhere on wikipedia, so you can use any of them P.S I have an ancestor from Colchester (my great great great great grandfather George Albert) but I'm from Lancashire myself)

XPhile2868 09:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello PJB! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 198 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

De Es Schwertberger - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]