User talk:Mintguy/archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We saw a documentary on tv tonite, where all these people who knew about the conspiracy told their stories. Kissinger and all the other politicians and even Kubrick's widow spoke and admitted the hoax was true...They also admitted the elimination of Andy Rogers, Jim Grow, Vince Broom, Bob Stein and Vernon A. Walters. Stanley Kubrick spent the last times of his life at home until he died , terrified of being also eliminated.


Hey mintguy, Thanks for the note on football vs. soccer you wrote on my talk page. I'll have a look at the discussion (I prefer it to be called football too). Cheers, D.D. 10:50 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Mintguy,

I've weighed in on the Soccer argument -- I agree: calling A ssociation Football "Soccer" is not the answer! I've gone for disambiguation as the only politically feasible solution. The Anome 11:02 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Mintguy- just got your note on my talkpage, but I'm not sure I'm the right preson to ask as I absolutely HATE football and hard as I try can't take any interest in it at all- I did go and see Westham Utd once in 1979 with a friend but got bored after 2 minutes. I did kick a ball about in the garden where I work for about 10 minutes about three weeks ago though... But for what it's worth i agree that 'football' is better than 'soccer', isn't soccer slang? I did try & follow the debate a bit on the list of footballers talk page but didn't understand much of it... Cheers, sorry I can't be of more use here.... quercus robur 18:17 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Mintguy - I just saw your message on my talkpage. In contrast to Quercusrobur I like football, and I'm not interested at all in American football or any other sports of that name. But I have to admit, that I understand mav's arguments. On the English wikipedia it may happen, that some readers take football for another sport. I don't know about, if soccer is slang or not - remember, that I'm not a native English speaker. What about trying to find a compromise? Maybe an article with the title football (soccer) would be such a compromise, while football has the disambiguation page.
I am sorry, that I can't help you. I am currently involved in another edit conflict, and two edit conflicts at the same time are too much ;-)
Seriously, I actually don't have an opinion about this subject, so I am not helpful here. Sorry again -- Cordyph 18:40 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Ahem, you seem to be quite eager to get more people involved in that debate. Frankly, I don't care either way. --Eloquence 21:14 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Mintguy. Thanks for the note on my talk page, and apologies for not joining in the debate. To be honest, I can't stand the game, so I find it difficult to get worked up enough to get into a heated debate about it! I agree that "soccer" and "associated football" are not good terms, but I think "football (soccer)" has pretty much been chosen, and that seems a reasonable compromise to me. At least it starts with the word "football". In any case, I look forward to reading your account of the historical roots of the game, as I like history, even if it is history of sports. :) -- Oliver P. 22:06 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can be bothered with it now. I'm completely fed up.
Oh no! Have a good night's sleep, and hopefully you'll feel better in the morning. :) -- Oliver P. 22:16 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)
Nil desperandum! These things get really on top of you then suddenly it all falls into place again. Nevilley

Hey, mintguy, sorry about the football fuss. I'm not much of a sports fan myself, so I had no idea there was such a violent controversy over the NAME of the game: if you went into a Glasgow pub and said - "Did anyone see the soccer game last night?" - you're likely to be punched in the face or worse. --Uncle Ed 00:38 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Well yes but they might just hit you anyway before you'd said anything, it depends which part of Glasgow you're in ... :) Nevilley 00:58 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Well fought on the football thing. I always thought that football would end up disambiguated, and that in the end you have to take an international view of these things. I'd have preferred "football (association)" myself, but "soccer" is the only word that the poor benighted Yanks have for the beautiful game. You're right about the thin end of the wedge, though: it's important that "football" doesn't drift off in the direction of American football, and that we don't get stuck with "soccer" everywhere. --rbrwr

My thoughts precisely. I hate the idea that the word soccer(spit) is creeping into more and more usage.

Hey, don't be too disappointed about the way the football debate turned out. You successfully prevented the article from being moved to soccer, which is really a partial victory. I hope you do finish your article on the history of football; I for one had no idea about its complex family tree. Consider it your duty to education ignorant North Americans like myself. :) -- Stephen Gilbert 03:36 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. LOL. Yeah I'm coming round to the idea of Football (soccer) for the most part you'd have to use the bracketed term for Usians anyway. Mintguy

Hi Mintguy. Should the link to [[English]] in the Football (soccer) article be [[English language|English]] or [[England|English]]? Neither seems to be quite right to me so I can't make up my mind. Sorry for the befuddledness -- sannse 17:17 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

If I can offer my ten pennorth here, I think it's [[English language|English]] , (a) because we are talking about the name of the game after all - a linguistic feature, and (b) for consistency with the neighbouring entries for German, Dutch etc. In comparison with what happens when you click those, for the English one to go to [[England|English]] would be weird. Or am i missing the point?? :) hth --- Nevilley 18:08 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
That was my first thought too, then I thought of the soccer/football debate and wondered whether we are saying that this term is from England, rather than of the English language. I'm probably worrying too much :) -- sannse 20:24 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
I've changed it to English language. Thanks for flagging it. Mintguy
OK, thanks -- sannse 20:32 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Sleep? Moi? At very odd hours. (I've been confined to home with a back injury for a while, so I have been spending too long on Wiki. I'm dreading my next phone bill.) When I get a moment I'll start fixing up some links to the F(s) page. I've just spent ages doing 'Australian stuff', having 'done' the Virgin Mary (that sounds slightly rude!), papal tiaras and same sex marriage. A broad range, eh! (I'm also dealing with a guy who insists that Australia is a republic and has spent his time duly doctoring sites to state this 'fact'. I've been one of a group who have been de-doctoring them and trying by quoting texts, articles, the constitution, comments by Australian republicans, etc to get it through to him that it isn't, not yet at least. But I'm afraid a statement from Jesus Christ wouldn't convince him at his stage. Having stopped after 7 reversions by numerous people from 'doctoring' the main Aussie site, he has now started doctoring linked sites. Oh the fun of wiki, eh!) JTD 23:34 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. I did some of the reversions on Australia. I just found an amusing website with British/American differences, which has reminded me of some things to add the wiki page. Makes a change from football. I've kind of calmed down from all that nonsense (er... malarkey) now. If it can't go at 'football' then 'football (soccer)' is the next best thing. Still if this was a conventional encyclopaedia if it had 'football' at 'soccer' it would go in the bin. Mintguy

Actually the definite article is one of my big issues. I think it has to be used sparingly, but there are times when it is a must. I created a page for The Irish Times and if I remember correctly I left a note on the talk page staying something to the effect of 'remove 'the' from the title and you die'!!! I think it has to be The Irish Times, whereas the Irish Independent doesn't call itself The Irish Independent in its masthead, so you can't use it there. And Sunday Times looks a bit naked without The Sunday Times. I think you have to say The Guardian. And I agree it should be The Labour Party and The Conservative Party. (I can't remember if I left a note on the talk page of one or other but I know I meant to. I thought it looked odd when I saw it stripped of The.

But it is alkward for what do you do with a mouthful like The Social Democratic and Labour Party which is how it is said. There I dropped the 'the' because (a) it would make the title even more alkward, and (b) they don't call themselves TSDLP' so drop the 'the'. People talk about The University of Dublin (ie Trinity College) but I think the logical thing there is to drop the the. So it is complicated. But I'm 100% opposed to a blanket dropping of thes from titles. But I think we also have to guard against people putting Thes everywhere, eg The Princess Royal, The Republic of Ireland, The Hellenic Republic. The Fifth French Republic. I think the best rule is, if it is used in the official name or the mast-head and general usage includes the definite article is kept in, then it should be kept in. But where it isn't used formally, and the meaning is clear without it, and it doesn't feel uncomfortable without it, then by all means drop it. Labour Party without the 'the' does feel wrong. Parliamentary Labour Party without 'the' doesn't.

Boy is it complicated! But I am happy that we seemed to have worked about a good compromise on the f/s issue. I hope I didn't come across as too trenchant. (That's the joy of spending six weeks with a flu, then a very painful back injury. I was really bad tempered!) I was totally opposed to moving things to soccer, which was Mav's first choice; I know that isn't the most widely used name. But it is a widely used name in some places, and even where it isn't, it still is usually recognisable. Initially when I saw the page (before I opened it) I saw the name, presumed it was about American football, and thought 'those bloody Americans! they are highjacking another term for themselves!!!' That's why I suggested [Football (soccer)]. I thought it brought clarity. Even if that argument hadn't cropped up now, it would have in the future. It made sense to get a clear unambiguous agreed term now, or else, every couple of weeks, someone would join Wiki, or find the page and go 'Hold on a minute. That's wrong!' and change it to Association Football, or Soccer, or whatever, and it would become one long battle. Now at least there is one clearly recognisable name set in stone. So if someone does come along, not knowing the pain that went into getting a deal and change it, there is a wiki consensus about what it should be, so it can be restored without opening the whole argument. (Clarity, recognisability and NPOV are three thinks that are issues with me. That's why I proposed replacing the 'War on Iraq' (which most people agree isn't as NPOV as it could be. 'On' implies US agression, with implies Iraq and the US are both causing the war, another disputed POV. So I've proposed a holding title until the war starts of 'Proposed Iraq war' which so far seems generally to have found favour as the least POV suggestion available!) You are welcome to chip in on that debate, BTW. It is on the talk page of [UN Security Council and the War against Iraq] (or something like that!)

OK. I'll go before I fill up your page totally. (I'm here testing out IPhoto!) Slán (Irish for goodbye) JTD 04:06 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Hello. Just out of curiosity... I see that you described the Dragon School as "a famous prep school", so I was just wondering, how famous is it really? Although I see that lots of Top People went there, and sent their children there, I'm not sure that I'd heard of it before this year. But it has such a cool name! I think I would have felt compelled to make an article for it even if it was completely unknown. :) -- Oliver P. 17:10 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Well. That's a good question. Famous is a dodgy word and I was reluctant to use it but I wanted to to make the link say "the Dragon School". I'm not exactly up on prep schools as I was educated in the state system. The public schools are much more well known than prep schools. The London Oratory is the only prep school I can think of off hand. Mintguy
Okay. I can think of St. Cedd's School as well, but only because I went there for three years! I'm thinking of writing an article on it for the Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if people will consider it notable enough. I'll have to think of some notable things to say about it... -- Oliver P. 19:25 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Mintguy, did any of your research into football history cover the offside rule? Bagpuss

Yes a little bit, I've put something on the Offside page. Mintguy


Okay, thanks, like you said someone will have to put that into the article. Maybe me. Later Bagpuss

Well done on the renaming! JTD 23:03 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

I thought you said your interest was waning, Mintguy. All those books you're getting sound pretty impressive. Bagpuss 17:41 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

I've been away a few days.

Re: your call for deletion vote on business terms implying fraud or stupidity. These terms do not show up much on searches because the people who use them are investment advisors, bankers, etc., who dare not go on the record as describing or even implying that a specific investment is actually valued too high as a result of these terms. Call up ten such people and you will find that a good two to five of them know the term, and one has used it in a meeting that week.

But, you won't find much evidence of its use in writing, since any one in such a position who used it in such a way would be fired, and any one publishing a comment on a company using such a term would be sued or at least intimidated into taking the comment down. Even defining the term is something that is best done anonymously, lest one lose the trust of the investment community - who count on each other to conceal their scams.

The term "toxic waste" has also been used to describe bad investments of this nature. Use of that term in public has cost companies a *lot* of money, as you can easily verify. Thus they got smart about suppressing other such terms.

These terms do not show up much on searches - They do not show up AT ALL on searches. If they are idiosyncratic terms used by hardly anyone they are un-encyclopaedic. Mintguy

Yeah, I got broadband. Why? Am I posting a lot tonight? ^_^ --Uncle Ed

I have broadband. Well, they call it broadband on the invoice, but I call it "variablewidthband". Sometimes it's broad, sometimes it's worse than dial-up. Shrug. I live in a country town. There is only one cable supplier, and the alternative is Telstra ADSL. (You know how wonderful British Telecom isn't? Like that.) But I don't have RealPlayer here at the office, where the machines don't run Windows, only at home (where security and stability are less important). I'll try it tonight (in about 8 or 10 hours time. Tannin 01:32 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Well, yes, I can access it, but it's stop-start stuff. My cable provider is pretty second-rate though. (sigh.) Tannin

Is some content on the page titled Comic Relief, which you created? Netscape crashes instantly when I click on that page (I've tried it four times). Is this an April Fool's Day joke? Michael Hardy 19:46 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

I would guess it's got something to do with the table that Pcb21 added. Try looking at the history and the versions from his first additions. Mintguy 19:56 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Regards Roger Taylor in Band Aid (band), it really is the Duran Duran one. The guy in the photo has dark hair for a start, rather than blond, and as a former Queen Fan Club member I know that Queen weren't involved until Live Aid. -Nommo 23:26 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Back row, between Hadley and Le Bon, is Glenn Gregory of Heaven 17. I know this by virtue of having the Do They Know It's Christmas 12" on my lap. Roger Taylor (Duran Duran) is on the middle row, in a white jumper, between Gary Kemp and Marilyn. He has his arms folded. Honest. Trust me. :)) -Nommo 13:01 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
Quite right, sorry for being a plank. Mintguy
That's quite alright. :) -Nommo

Yeah, you're probably right. I didn't create the subpages of course, I'm just trying to fix an anonymous user's awful "disambiguation" style -- i.e. starting all the article titles with an apostrophe. I may as well finish. -- Tim Starling 13:04 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Call it an error of judgement. I was in turbo-edit mode, where all editorial decisions take 0.4 seconds. -- Tim Starling 13:40 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Mintguy, I think your renaming of the House of Commons (UK) to House of Commons, though understandable, is fundamentally wrong. Historically the term comes from Britain (or England, to be exact). But a number of countries have equal ownership of the name when referring to their country's current or former lower chamber. It is no longer the ownership of one country. To Canadians, House of Commons by definition means their House of Commons. To Irish people, the House of Commons can refer to either the British or the Irish House of Commons. [[House of Commons]] should be a disambigulation page, with each country's House of Commons clarified in the normal way it is used outside that country's borders, ie, British House of Commons, Irish House of Commons, Canadian House of Commons. No-one outside Britain says simply 'House of Commons'. They always call it the British House of Commons. Wiki has a problem with its americocentrism. The last thing we need is to add a layer of anglocentrism on top of that. As I say, I do understand the reasoning for the change, but I think it is misguided and using a nomenclature that claims ownership of the title for one state over others, and this it cannot do. Most people, for example, when they hear the name of Queen Elizabeth II think of the UK monarch, but wiki still requires that all states' names be stated, so we have [[Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom]]. We should follow the same disambigulation rules here. ÉÍREman 23:18 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Firstly. I didn't rename the page as such I just put it back to where it was 10 minutes before. Secondly, the House of Commons is an ancient institution, and like the ancient cities of London, Paris, Durham and Dublin, deserves to be in its own page without any unnecessary qualification. Thirdly the Irish House of Commons and House of Commons of Southern Ireland are defunct institutions that would always need disambiguation. Fourthly a quick google check for Irish websites mentioning the "House of Commons" without qualification ("house of commons" site:ie -british = 1,130; "house of commons" site:ie -british -canada = 1,060), finds an overwhelming majority referring to the UK house. Fiftly, shall we no rename the White House to White House of USA so that we can disambiguate between that and the White House of Russia? If you have made up your mind to move the page then I have no interest in furthering this debate other than to put my point of view, I won't get into another war about moving pages. If you wish to move it back again then do so. Mintguy 10:26 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference, Mintguy. If you say White House, almost everybody even in Russia would think of the US White House. You say HofC and people will think of different ones. Millions of Canadians will think of their HofC, millions of UK people will think of their HofC. You cannot operate on the principle of "we had the name first, so there". If two groups automatically think of two rival meanings for a term, it should be disambigulated. The Irish HoC isn't directly relevant except as an example of two more HofCs. But two modern parliaments have the same name. It wouldn't be acceptable if Americans used the word Congress and everyone else had to call their Congress a different disambigulated name. As a historian, I do completely understand your point and sympathise with it. I think of the UK HofC when I hear the words HofC. But my Canadian ex-partner thinks of a different one. Montrealais thinks instinctively of the Canadian one also. So do other Canadians on wiki. Worldwide, 95%+ think of the British London not anyone else, the Irish Dublin, the French Paris so as others have said in those cases disambigulation isn't necessary. But when it comes to a national parliament and a term that though historically originated in England, today means a number of parliaments, disambigulation is necessary. To do otherwise is to add to the feeling of americocentrism with anglocentrism. Even English/British/United Kingdom monarchs are disambigulated, even though most of the world that hasn't a monarch of their own automatically think of the British one. So I cannot see how the article can be left at that page. It has to be disambigulated when millions of people interpret the word to mean something other than how it is now interpreted on wiki. Sorry. ÉÍREman 13:40 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Hello. I've just seen your last edit to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and I was just wondering... How is "as of 2003" better than "as of 2003"? The former looks strange, and as of 2003 redirects to 2003 anyway... So I'm a little confused! -- Oliver P. 02:22 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I see! Don't worry, I've just found Talk:As of 2003. -- Oliver P. 02:41 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Just curious: why did you (if I'm reading the page history correctly) copy the content of United Kingdom/Basic Topics to List of United Kingdom topics, instead of just renaming the page? -- Paul A 01:34 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation (on my talk page), Mintguy. -- Paul A 08:07 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

OK, see http://www.p.lodz.pl/I35/personal/jw37/EUROPE/cesko2.htm http://www.p.lodz.pl/I35/personal/jw37/EUROPE/cesko1.htm

It's all about convention, I use the short form because it is more comfortable for me, I don't use "the Republic of Austria" or "the Federal Republic of Germany" but "Austria" and "Germany", so why should "the Czech Republic" be an exeption?

Because that's what we English-speakers know it as. -- Zoe

Mintguy, I put the reason why the article, class (object-oriented programming) should be renamed. Please give me comments. Thanks in advance. -- Taku 18:38 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Please stop an attempt to limit usage of oo terms. Inheritance is used not only in OOP but in OO-design or other components model. What's wrong with the naming inheritance (computer science)? -- Taku 20:09 18 May 2003 (UTC)
The first sentence of that article is "In computer science's object-oriented programming theory, inheritance...". So what is wrong with the current title? All of the current articles about OO theory and design are at listed as object-oriented programming. Mintguy 20:15 18 May 2003 (UTC)
Looks to me like the first sentence should be changed then. Inheritance can be used in any language with functions. That makes it a concept with a much bigger applicability than just OO theory and design. It's part of re-usability. -- Derek Ross 20:23 18 May 2003 (UTC)
The article is ALL about inheritance in OOP which is one of the fundamental aspects of all OOP languages it needs an article of its own. Mintguy 20:27 18 May 2003 (UTC)
The article needs more work for sure. I just didn't have time to do that. But we first have to rename the article because if I started to add mention about inheritance other than that in OOP. People will complain the article is inheritance in OOP. You know this is egg and chiken problem. To solve the problem, first we need to rename the article then we can move to change the actual text. -- Taku 20:32 18 May 2003 (UTC)
Inheritance is an OO concept and not a procedural one. Now you could put the OO articles under OOD rather than OOP but I don't think it makes much difference as for the most part OOD is implemented with OOP and most of the articles about OO are under OOP. So why do you have a problem in putting Inheritance at OOP, it should either be under OOP or OOD and not computer Science. Mintguy 20:39 18 May 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be best to leave the current article at inheritance (object-oriented programming) for the moment since it does specifically cover inheritance from an OO POV but create a new more generic article at inheritance (computer science) covering the concept of inheritance from a less specific POV. It certainly is possible to use inheritance in procedural languages (even oldies like FORTRAN IV) but since the current articles use OO terminology throughout, they wouldn't help you much if you wanted to know how to do it in a procedural language without built-in OO support. -- Derek Ross 20:50 18 May 2003 (UTC)
Derek. Inheritance is an OOD concept whichever way you look at it. Sure you can implement it in non-OOP languages. Most programming languages are flexible enough to allow you to use OOD techniques without being OOP. If you wanted to, in C, you could emulate C++'s hidden *this pointer by passing it explicitly and maintain vtables for your objects. OOPs just make it more obvious. Mintguy 21:07 18 May 2003 (UTC)

There appears to have been some debate on the Emperor of Japan talk page. I wasn't involved. Though I do think what he is doing is turning them into an unworkable form, I am standing well back. (I have had enough of edit wars lately to last a wiki-lifeline!) To be honest I don't know what if anything was agreed but having made my point clearly as to how what seems to be being done is illjudged I am standing back from this one. I presumed what had been "agreed" was a more workable idea that what seems to be being implemented but I will let others fight the "Battle of the Japanese Emperors" (round 57)! I am japanese emperored-out!!! lol. FearÉÍREANN 02:24 19 May 2003 (UTC)

Just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean it is nonsense. Perhaps you should look at what NPOV means. It does not mean asserting that football games are restricted to two teams as you seem to be suggesting. Harry Potter

There is a very useful facility called google (see www.google.com) for doing web searches. I found 109 entries for Three sided football. However you might find it more convenient to check The Observer (UK) newspaper of 26th May 1996, for a reference to a match played as part of the Hackney Anarchy Week. Also if 'Sport' and 'Art' are mutually exclusive categories perhaps you should start campaigning to have figure skating removed from the olympics. However until then, I think perhaps your suggestion that Three sided football is not a sport should be regarded as a personal viewpoint not born out in reality; indeed a personal viewpoint which could be referenced on the football page but not to the exclusion of the view that Three sided football is a sport, perhaps one of the best sports in the world. (What are we going to have to remove the page on imaginary numbers because they are not real). Also, I do not understand your concern about football being "tainted" in some way?Harry Potter

The number 109 speaks for itself. It is the same number found by me when I looked the other day, and reading through some of the hits only confirmed that it is as imaginary as Mornington Crescent, and should be described as such. Mintguy

About edit war regarding OOP articles. Please keep the debate, or give up imposing your point of view. If you started to stop replying, I have to assume you agree with my opinion. Besides, comment first then go to revert. I did show you my evidence supporting what I have done. And you didn't disprove that. -- Taku 01:37 23 May 2003 (UTC)


What evidence where!?!?!

Thank you for your correction concerning Martin Frobisher getting the black rock. However, Sir Humphrey Gilbert was involved in the Society of the New Art which attempted to produce gold, and their laboratory was at Limehouse. A little hint: why not correct pages rather than reverting to a former page. Removed a range of corrections. e.g. there are no tube stations in the area - tube stations are constructed by driving a tube through the ground and then building a railway inside. Local services are provided by the underground which is constructed by cut and cover. Also the term nearest refers to only those staiosn with the greatest propinquity to the area. Thus it is correct to list Stepney Green underground station, Limehouse DLR station and Westferry DLR station. The other stations listed are some distance away, particularly Bow Church DLR which is beyond Bow Common and Bow Road underground station. I was particularly suprised that someone so knowledgeable about Martin frobisher would remove the reference to Ratcliffe. Was it not from here that Frobisher departed to play his part in the defeat of teh Spanish Armada? Anyway I ahve taken the reference to the sea monster to the Humphrey Gilbert page, as he did not encounter the beast at Limehouse. Harry Potter

I am afraid I have the advantage of you having studied the Humphrey Gilbert situation at some depth about ten years ago. Perhaps it would be better if you worked from knowledge rather than ignorance. Relying on www sources alone is sure to lead to disappointment. Also why have you deleted the reference to Ratcliffe? Why have you put what is now deliberately misleading information about the so-called "nearest" stations. If you were behaving in a reasonable fashion you could have substituted nearby stations include or some other circumlocution instead of the nonsesnse you have reverted to. Perhaps you would do better adding to a location you actually know something about rather than treacherising a locality for which by all accounts you do not have a shread of fondness.Harry Potter

Try to take a time out. If Harry Potter is as vile as you think he is, you will have no trouble convincing the whole wikipedia community to do what the community feels appropriate to deal with it. Unilateral and personal reversion threats do not help your cause one whit! So again, TRY to cool down your temper, do something relaxing; and then come back and present your case to the wikipedians. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 11:31 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I did take a look at the links you provided, and will recount below what I make of them. But the whole point of what I wrote above is that your decision to revert everything by Harry Potter indiscriminately, gives the impression that what I (or any other wikipedian) make of his edits; is not only irrelevant, but that it is a prerogative of any single wikipedian to make the discernment of what is beyond the pale, as regards to a signed in users continued presence on wikipedia. That I do not endorse. Let the proper (attested) forms be observed. If you think they are too slow to work, propose more summary mechanisms to deal with dilutory contributors. Don't just make the rules up to suit yourself. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 12:26 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ok. You have followed the procedures. Good. Revert changes that (after consideration) you consider spurious. Good. But a blanket declaration of reversion on the users talk-page? PLEASE! I can't take that as an indication that you are willing or prepared to wait for others to consider the matter, much less my own humble self. I would like to have time to research and consider the evidence you have provided, and not be railroaded into one or the other determination of the facts in question!!! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 13:14 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oh absolutely, if your actions have not (and will not be) been to revert purely on suspicion (rather than adjust edits on suspicion), we have no quarrel. I am not too bothered about anything you do or say, it will all come out right in the end. I trust the wikipedia community and its resilience. In fact I personally am quite amenable to the argument that in demonstrated cases of logged in users deliberately and maliciously corrupting the wikipedias accuracy, they should be dealt with EXTREME PREJUDICE. The only thing here that gets me hot under the collar is the concept of DUE PROCESS (is that the fourth amendment, or was that the fourteenth amendment?) being irrelevant to an orderly decicion of matters pertaining to an individual and his status in a group. I hope that is not a disagreeable concept to you. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 14:08 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If, after I review the evidence; I consider the specific facts to be as you allege, I would certainly support adjustive action at every instance where such malfeasance had occured. Only as a very surgical and localized treatment. As to how one should approach the contributors contributions in general if the contributor is found by the wikipedia community to have transgressed the boundaries, hey! Anything goes! (but that should not be your decision) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 15:06 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful if you considered whether the possibility of the separation of fact from fantasy is more rooted in fact or fantasy? Harry Potter.

I see you had to revert 149.101.1.119's work on Tony Blair. I have been correcting this person's stuff all night. Some of what they do is OK, other stuff bullshit. Some probably a mistake, other bits patently absurd POV stuff - like changing John Hume to make him a British politician. As this user don't have a talk page, how do we get to talk to them? They aren't a vandal but just seem not to know some of the changes they are making, and their possible POV meaning. (Calling Charles Stewart Parnell a 'protestant' in the opening line risked given the complexity of Irish history of making him sound like a protestant leader, ie a unionist. That he was protestant was actually stated later on in the article in a way that wouldn't give the impression. Indeed 'religion' seems a big issue with this user, who has been putting 'protestant' and 'catholic' in a long list of Irish articles about people!) *sigh*. Oh what fun! :-) FearÉIREANN 21:47 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

please provide an animation of a normal traffic circle to compare to the roundabout user_talk:hfastedge

A vote is being made at Talk:Inheritance (object-oriented programming). It's tied, we need your vote! MB 14:51 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi MG - yeah I put in the thing about the P-IRA saying that they were/are a small terrorist group in Ireland because I never cease to be amazed at how many people (particularly in America and Africa) think it is some massive quasi-army representing the people of Ireland and with the support of the great majority. When Sinn Féin began seriously contesting elections in the Republic, one person in the US seriously asked me whether they would get the majority (82 seats) or be just under it in that general election. They were flabbergasted when SF won only 1 seat and thought that a good achievement. And how at an electoral high in 2002, they got a grand total of 5 out of 166. So for accuracy sake, it is important to point out that (a) it is a very small organisation, (b) it in no way represents a large body of people, let alone the majority. When some republican supporters tried to heckle 20,000 peace campaigners who had turned out in the aftermath of the Warrington bombing, they were almost lynched by elements of the crowd. (With supreme irony, the republicans turned for protection to Án Garda Siochána, the police force whose members they had on occasion tried to kill!) On wiki I have tried to be neutral and NPOV though personally I have good reason for hating the IRA: it blew the head off a friend of mine in a Belfast pub, tried four times to plant car bombs under the car of a politician I know (on a visit to Dublin, he agreed reluctantly to give three of us a lift, but only after he had spent five minutes with a mirror checking under his car for bombs and then driven around the car park continually for 10 minutes, just to be sure so that the three of us wouldn't get killed by a car bomb (that week's attempt to kill him!). And a distant relative who used to come to Dublin from London stopped coming in the early 1980s. I had no idea until two decades later why - he had received death threats against himself and us if he came to Ireland again, even though he is Irish. And his crime? As a plastic surgeon he had been the one to reshape Princess Diana's hideously big nose down to more manageable proportions. Through his involvement with the irish community in London, he had come to know and become close friends with the Queen, Princess Margaret and Prince Charles all of whom were regular attenders at Irish community functions. And because of that, he (and everyone in Ireland related to him) received death threats from the IRA, a particular irony in my family's case given that my grandmother and her brother had been involved in the Old IRA during Ireland's War of Independence. So that is the reason why I think it is useful to clarify, lest their be confusion by readers internationally, that the IRA is a small terrorist organisation, not the voice of Ireland and not an organisation that was viewed with legitimacy by 95%+ of the people of the Republic. FearÉIREANN 22:56 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm... not sure, so I left the link texts as they were (Postmaster-General) and the article titles as they were (United Kingdom Postmaster General, etc.). I'm sure they'll be made consistent sooner or later, but my way is good enough for the time being. --rbrwr


Re: the Earls of Lucan, presumably the peerage was created a second time for the Binghams after the Sarsfield (was that it?) line died out. Thus, you have the 1st Earl of Lucan and 2nd Earl of Lucan (1st creation), and then the 1st through 7th Earls of Lucan (2nd creation). Also, I'm not completely sure, but I'd think that any creation by James II in 1690 would not have been recognized (even if Lucan was, as I think, but am not sure, an Irish peerage), since he'd been deposed the previous year. And, indeed, Lucan is not listed at all in the Handbook of British Chronology, which lists all Earls created in the peerages of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Great Britain before the Hanoverian accession in 1714. So it ought to be made clear 1) which peerage both Earldoms were created in; and 2) that the first creation was a Jacobite creation. john 23:17 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've adapted the text to cover this. (It was being done at the time. More great minds thinking alike!) FearÉIREANN 00:14 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You seem to have put a lot of effort into "preparing for" the disambiguation of the Duke of Wellington. I now expect great things of this disambiguation. Deb 20:50 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The fact that he was born in Ireland, was based on Ireland for part of his life and served as a member of the Irish House of Commons would certainly qualify him to be called Irish. There are many holders of the British peerage who are Irish; the Earl of Mount Charles ran for the Dáil some years ago, for example (Henry is the heir to the British title Lord Minster). Indeed some of the most active of the hereditary peers before reform of the House of Lords were Irish. A number of leading Irish holders of British peerages even were appointed to the Senate or by the President of Ireland to the advisory Council of State. As to Wellington's comment, it was perfectly understandable in the context. In the late eighteenth century/nineteenth century, there was a high degree of rascist dislike of Irish people within the British establishment. That would have counted against Wellington. His comments were a way of saying to people in the British establishment, "I may have been born in Ireland, but I am one of you, not them." BTW it was suggested some years ago that his birth place should become the official residence of the Taoiseach, but in the end that did not happen, regrettably. Due to the costs of rebuilding Government Builldings across the road from it, the house and others alongside which were part of the now defunct Department of Lands were sold and are all now turned into one large hotel. (I was actually in it yesterday morning to meet someone!) FearÉIREANN 23:48 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Re: articles on various peerages, some thoughts: 1) singular or plural is fine with me, I have no preference. If singular is the standard wikipedia way of doing it, that's fine. 2) You're certainly not stepping on my toes. The more people disambiguating noble titles, the better. 3) For lesser titles, I'm not sure. If the first holder of the lesser title is later given the higher title, it would make sense to just do it on the higher title (for instance, George Villiers, who was successively Earl, Marquess, and Duke of Buckingham). On the other hand, should Lord Burghley be listed in an article on the Earls of Exeter? I don't see why he would. For peerage titles that are the same, this problem could be obviated by titling the article "Earls and Dukes of Bedford", or "Earls, Marquesses, and Dukes of Buckingham", but that would require pluraling, which may be undesirable (I have done that already, however, for Albemarle, where I moved it from "Duke of Albemarle" to "Earls and Dukes of Albemarle", since the majority of people under discussion were Earls, not Dukes. Another, similar example would be Shrewsbury. It was an Earldom for more than two centuries, from the 15th to the late 17th, and then was made a Dukedom. The first duke had no children, and so the Dukedom died with him, but the earldom continued under collateral Talbots. Should that article really be under "Duks of Shrewsbury"? It would make more sense to have a separate article for each peerage title, and link over to the article for the peerage into which it was subsumed, imo. john 00:03 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/n/User_talk%7EMintguy_archive_2_4717.html"