User talk:Leaky caldron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Jowellgate 2 Nick Nairn 3 Cash for peerages 4 On donations and peerages 5 Big Brother 6 Your recent edits to Cash for Peerages 7 Userbox image 8 Stop! 9 Kings X 10 Date formatting 11 Harry Potter temlate 12 Martin Bell 13 George's replacement 14 84.66.46.23 15 Re: your edit to Big Brother series 7 16 Talk:Big Brother (UK series 7), User talk:Lorian 17 Big Brother : Gdo01 18 Jimmy Savile 19 14 August 2006 20 Defamation towards User:FireFox 21 Three Revert Rule 22 Big Brother (UK series 7)

[edit] Jowellgate

Thank you for your intemperate note re the above. I am quite entitled to make changes to the above - as are the other contributors. The piece on the face of it would look better as a sub-part of the main article - rather than being hidden under a neologism! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi John - thanks for the note - I was about to place your work in a sub article on the Jowell article when work distracted me - I shall now do so - keep smiling and editing! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 17:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Done Jowellgate - Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 17:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about my error on David Mills (lawyer). I inadvertently edited an old version of the article. I hope I've fixed it now. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Nairn

Hi John, Brookie here, I've fiddled and updated the Nairn article. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 08:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cash for peerages

Glad you are on the scent of another scandal!--farsee50 09:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. We just couldn't write some of the stuff these people are getting up to if we tried. I mean, what sort of business can recieve £14m and the bloke responsible, appears not to have a clue. Sounds like a Robert Maxwell scam. Ideally what we need is a link between David Mills and the £14m. How about if it ended up in one of his off-shore accounts and was used to pay off Blair's £4m mortgage!

Keep up the good work.

leaky_caldron 23:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC) john

In your dreams (as Woodward said to Bernsetin, perhaps?!)--farsee50 20:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just attempted my first contribution to a "major" article - Jean Charles de Menezes so I'm expecting all sorts of reversions/changes and accusations of vandalism!!--leaky_caldron 21:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Keep it up: Bush & Berlusconi next?--farsee50 00:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message for you on Michael Levy's discussion page. Like you I thought not a PC - not a Right Hon but looking at the Right Hon page I'm not so sure? --leaky_caldron 16:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On donations and peerages

It is never the done thing on Wikipedia to take evidence of having a point of view outside Wikipedia and assume that makes ones' edits POV inside Wikipedia. My frustration with the inability to spell names right extends across the political spectrum because I find that editors' knowledge of names and knowledge of other information go together: in other words, an editor who is unable to spell a name correctly is likely to have got other important facts wrong as well. So far as Tessa Jowell goes, she has not actually been accused of anything scandalous, so it is only a putative scandal. A lot of fuss in the Daily Mail and people frothing at the mouth on Tory blogs does not a scandal make. David | Talk 00:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

you are totally incorrect about Jowellgate. It's not solely about Tessa Jowell (who has not of the face of it done anything scandalous). That's why it's "Jowellgate" - because of her husband, the Italian, and her inability to manage personal finances - she's a politician it's a scandal - end of.

I got Clarke's name wrong. You changed it before any effective review that I may have carried out. It certainly does not make me more liable to get other important facts incorrect and I take serious exception to the generalisation that you make.--leaky_caldron 00:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't read the Daily Mail or Tory blogs and I don't froth at the mouth. I'm sure that is also true of most contributors to the articles you appear concerned about. You have a condescending, patronising attitude which is not all together appreciated I'm afraid.--leaky_caldron 00:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I rather think the problem with you is that you don't like my support for the Labour Party but can't find any other way to impeach my edits. David | Talk 08:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

not only do you risk breaching WP:NPOV guidelines but you use weasel words like putative. For the record ::Scandal defined as follows: "A scandal is a widely publicized incident involving allegations of wrong-doing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, or the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both." On that basis there is nothing alleged or putative WP:WEASEL about Cash for Peerages - it is a scandal pure and simple due to facts as they stand, the revelations that have already been made and the implications that have been drawn. If everyone is 100% exonerated it will still class as a scandal.

I genuinely have no dislike for your support of the LP. Whether I share your views has to totally irrelevant here but rest assured that if you attempt to mask the reality with weasel words (whatever your reason) I will challenge it--leaky_caldron 09:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I never used the word "putative" about the working peers list. I used it about the (non-)allegations over Tessa Jowell. Your memory appears to be at fault here. David | Talk 09:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

no, not a memory "leak", I referred to the fact that you had used the WP:WEASEL word "putative" - I was not referring to this, that or any particular article.

You've done it again "(non-) allegations". The allegations have been made, they cannot be denied by prefixing with "non-". Not sure why you keep insisting it isn't a scandal because TJ isn't at the fundamental core of it. As I've said elsewhere, the Jowellgate scandal is a scandal for various reasons. Accept it, live with it; move on - just like she has. She doesn't have a coterie of people insisting there is no scandal; she's just getting on with life.--leaky_caldron 09:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother

Heavens, no, I don't contribute to any bigbrother usenet groups. No offense, but I'd rather pull my own teeth out than watch that thing. --Oscarthecat 21:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a feeling it wasn't you - different style!! Welcome your stance on Jowellgate btw.--leaky_caldron 21:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits to Cash for Peerages

I can't understand why you put the {{citeneeded}} tag on two points in the lead. If the two points were removed, the article would be pro-Labour POV: it would look like a complete non-scandal with no justification for anyone raising concerns! I really think your only problem with the edit is that it was done by me. David | Talk 23:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks. The first cite is because I didn't think we knew there was a connection between the loans and the peerage rejection - I thought the committee didn't make their reasons public. The second one where you are talking about something being widely accepted etc. will just not make enough sense to lay-readers in a few months time - when we've moved on to diferent topics. Don't get parnoid about edits - you've altered far more of my work. I think you could have adopted a far less frenitic and less confrontational style this evening. It does you no credit compared with the rest of the body of work which you have contributed to significantly--leaky_caldron 23:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox image

Sorry, you can't use copyrighted material on templates and userspace. See WP:FUC. Thanks --Doc ^ask? 17:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop!

Please do not leave an identical discussion strand on 4 different articles! You will just start an almighty, duplication mess. --Mais oui! 08:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

stop reverting my minor amendments for no good reason. They are intended to improve and add context - and they are a claer improvement on what was originally thereleaky_caldron 08:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kings X

Don't forget to register your opinion here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:UK_stations otherwise they might be back before you know it! Kind regards. Mrsteviec 17:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date formatting

There is no need to change the format of dates in an article. All dates usually have two square boxes around them, as in [[12 December]] or [[December 12]]. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences. Just hit that and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether dd/mm/yy, mm/dd/yy or yyyy/mm/dd. The general rules on how Wikipedia articles are written can be seen in our Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Type WP:MS in the search box and you'll see the page. Thryduulf 14:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter temlate

Sorry, I didn't know you couldn't use logos on templates. Now that I know I will adhere to the policy. KnoxSGT 15:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Bell

User Wally is editing to a genuine misunderstanding in using an oral form of address only used in parliament. I've left him as MOS guide links to push him in the right direction Alci12 11:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George's replacement

If a housemate walks, they will be replaced. That is what happens in Big Brother. George has not been replaced yet. --Lorian^T_C 13:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad, "Housemates leaving voluntarily or being asked to leave may be replaced at Big Brother's discretion." [1] Still, I think it's worth mentioning that he hasn't been replaced.

How about instead of "He was not replaced", we use "He has not been replaced"? There is still the possibility he will be replaced. We can change it to was at the end of the series, if he doesn't get replaced. --Lorian^T_C 13:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 84.66.46.23

Thanks for catching the vandalism by this guy on Great Shelford and others - quick work!

Geoff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thefamousgeoff (talk • contribs).

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. — FireFox 20:16, 22 July '06

[edit] Re: your edit to Big Brother series 7

What article are you referring to? — FireFox 20:01, 23 July '06

"Done this to several articles"? I only asked because your subject title was "your edit to Big Brother series 7", which isn't protected, and turns out not to be the article in question. — FireFox 20:09, 23 July '06

Sorry, but how is this for my own benefit? It's for the benefit of Wikipedia, and it was a non-controversial, non-POV edit. The wording of the edit was brought up on the talk page, and I changed it accordingly. There is no policy stating administrators are disallowed from editing protected pages. Why do you think we have the ability to edit them if we're 'abusing our authority' by doing so? — FireFox 20:18, 23 July '06

Can I bring it to your attention that I did not protect the page in the first place? If you bother to read the whole protection policy in full, you would realise there is nothing saying do not edit protected pages. I quote, "Administrators should be cautious about editing protected pages". Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. — FireFox 20:40, 23 July '06

May I point out that you behaviour is causing disruption? Please provide a concrete proof of policy violation (better than I think you have breached...). Otherwise, if you continue this wikilawyering, you will be blocked for disruption. Thank you and happy editing, Misza13 ^{T C} 20:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read the whole policy as I suggested. You should probably think this through before returning to my talk page complaining about me making an edit to a protected page (which you claim I protected but didn't), threatening arbitration in the process. — FireFox 20:52, 23 July '06

Gee thanks. A massive four words between my version, and someone elses... I don't know what you expect me to do or say. — FireFox 21:01, 23 July '06

I fail to find any FireFox's edits that fall under "poor quality". As an added note, the article has been protected to stop an edit war. However, since it documents an ongoing event, it should be kept accurate and up to date. And right now only admins can edit them - it would be quite silly to take the protection down for a few seconds just so that an admin can make an updating edit (unrelated to the edit war) and reprotect it again, don't you think? Misza13 ^{T C} 21:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Soo... err... what's your point? I'm going offline in about half an hour, so if you could tell me exactly what you want to get out of this now, it would be much appreciated. If you're looking for a revert of my edit, you won't get it, and after the way you've come storming over to my talk page this evening, you won't get an apology either. You're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and that's a blockable offence. — FireFox 21:17, 23 July '06

It is fact. [2] (backed up: [3]). I'm getting bored of this now. You either want to take action against me (as you said originally) or you don't (in which case stop leaving pointless messages on my talk page), and that's up to you. I'm not bothered either way. — FireFox 21:39, 23 July '06

Ok, sure thing. Night. — FireFox 21:51, 23 July '06

[edit] Talk:Big Brother (UK series 7), User talk:Lorian

• Re: [4], [5]. May I ask you why you have to keep bringing up the past? All you are doing by making these accusations over and over again is making me feel more inclined to protect the articles.
• Re: [6]. Please don't make personal attacks in the form of sarcastic comments, it can damage the contributors self confidence in editing.

Thanks, — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:11, 30 July '06}

[edit] Big Brother : Gdo01

I made the revert by mistake. I thought you were calling the man a wanker rather than saying what his catchprase is. Thanks for the comment actually put there by Sceptile --Gdo01 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Savile

I wasn't truly asking whether he was considered a contestant, just using that as an argument for not calling Gaetano a contestant. However, if the consensus is that Gaetano was a HM then so be it. Jess Cully 09:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 14 August 2006

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. — FireFox ^(talk) _{21:01, 14 August 2006}

[edit] Defamation towards User:FireFox

[edit] Three Revert Rule

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. — FireFox ^(talk) _{21:22, 28 August 2006}

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. — FireFox ^(talk) _{21:24, 28 August 2006}

[edit] Big Brother (UK series 7)

Hey there. I'm leaving you this message as you were a part of making the article Big Brother (UK series 7) and I've had the crazy idea of trying to get it to featured status, or at least a good article. I've made a peer review page, and comments there for improving would be greatly appreciated. Also, if you see I have left anyone out could you message them as well? Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 11:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)