User talk:Jnestorius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Association Football

Hi.

I had been making the same point as you about the officialness of "association football" as a name some time ago so I wrote to the FA in October of last year regarding their official position of whether the name of the sport is officially "football" or "association football" Here is their reply.

Hi xxxxxx,

Our official publication on the laws of the sport, updated every June, is called "Laws of Association Football". On that basis it could be said that "Association Football" is the official name of the sport.

However, I don't think there is any dispute that, in common parlance, we call it merely "football". There is a distinction now between "football" and "rugby" to follow a previous distinction between "Association Football" or "the Association game" and "Rugby Football" or "the Rugby game".

Interestingly, you allude to the fact that the sport's original rules or laws were not expressly "for Association Football" or "for the Association game", i.e. not expressly within those rules or laws. I believe they were understood as rules or laws for that form of football - bearing in mind that there were many forms before 1863 - which the new "Football Association" had created. So it was "Association Football" in the sense of "Association's Football".

"Association" quickly abbreviated to "soccer" (or "socker") in public school slang but the term is, in my experience, rarely seen or heard now. Not in this country, anyway.

So where does that leave us? Well, Rule 1 of the "Rules of The (Football) Association" includes the line: "All Clubs and Affiliated Associations shall play and/or administer football in conformity with these Rules and also (a) the Laws of the Game and (b) the Statutes and Regulations of FIFA and UEFA".

We call it "football" but its official name is "Association Football".

Regards,

David Barber Library The Football Association

Mintguy (T) 10:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] All things Irish

Hi there!

A very belated welcome to Wikipedia!

I notice you've edited some Irish topic articles. If you are interested, there's a Irish wikipedians' notice board. Feel free to call over and take a look, or drop a note!

Regards, zoney ▓   ▒ talk 09:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 1910

Thanks for annotating the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia from the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article. I suppose it isn't odd that a 95-year old article would be a decent source about regarding a state that was defunct 85 years ago. Even so, the age should be noted. Thanks for correcting that. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:09, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reduplication

Thanks for fixing my flub up on reduplication. That's what I get for not reading my own writing. D'oh. Nohat 09:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ME horses

Give me ten minutes :) Radiant_* 08:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "POV" edits to IRA

Compare your reverted version to mine and see how much of the material you actually removed is "point of view", or fact. Are two extra significant events in 1986 and 1987 my point of view, or are they fact? Is the Warringtom MO my point of view, or fact? Is nearly 20,000 injured my point of view or fact?

Do you contest the IRA targeted civilians? Do you contest they seek a united Ireland based on Marxist principles? Did they not attempt to kill the Cabinet twice and murder several MPs? Is the support from US Senators and Congressmen my invention? Is Belfast in Ireland or Northern Ireland? Are the Loughall and Gibraltar events figments of my imagination? You clearly dislike any reference to the IRA targeting innocent civilians, which is a fact: what is the reason for this?

A thing I've noticed on Wiki is that people edit things they do not like or do not agree with, and either give no reason - or one that is totally irrelevant or not appropriate. If you are going to delete entries because you do not accept them as fact, it's best to read them first and be in posession of the facts yourself. Almost none of what you deleted is POV, and none are factually incorrect. Ironically, your claim that the facts I added are my point of view is just your point of view. And your point of view is not supported by history.

So the IRA is not a terrorist organisation. That's news to the rest of the free world.

Indeed there was a fair amount of substantive fact in your edit, and I would welcome the reinsertion of that into the article. However, this was intermingled with POV elements. Rather than require other editors to disentangle the good-quality material in your edit from the POV portion, I would respectfully ask you to try to do this yourself before resubmitting it. Some examples of what I mean:
  • 20,000 civilians killed or injured certainly deserves mention, but you mentioned it twice. This does not reinforce the point, it smacks of argumentativeness, as does repetition of the phrase "innocent civilians".
  • "Terrorist" is one of the Wikipedia:Words to avoid. The article is already in Category:Terrorist organizations in Northern Ireland and there is a long footnote discussing who uses the word "Terrorist" to describe it. The bald use of the word in the opening sentence is inconsistent with this.
  • Changing [Ireland] to [Northern Ireland] is useful as it is less ambiguous and more specific. Changing [Ireland] to [Northern Ireland, UK] is intrusive. People who don't know already where Northern Ireland is will hardly have read that far. Changing [England] to [England, UK] is pointless. [Gibraltar, UK] is factually incorrect.
  • Phrasing such as "Again, Sinn Fein/IRA cry foul", "allowed their innocent countrymen to suffer the ordeal of wrongful conviction and imprisenment", "an event largely forgotten by history" "lesser known or publicised" are editorialising. State the facts: they can speak for themselves.
  • "The evidence in support of the accusation is huge, though a more likely reason for the activity is diversification" this statement seems to contradict itself.
  • Misspellings (TRepublicans, the Kennedy's, imprisenment) are always intrusive. In the context of a substantial edit, many Wikipedians will see them as evidence that a contribution was written in haste.
I hope you don't find my comments insulting. I believe the Northern Ireland material in Wikipedia does tend to reflect Irish Nationalist bias of editors more than Unionist bias. Any editors able to remedy this are very welcome. Joestynes 10:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I apologise for my angry post: I am senstive about this subject because my brother was a soldier killed by the IRA (by a man now a Sinn Fein councillor).

I accept your opinions on this matter. Thank you for your reasoned and helpful reply.

Jay K

Thanks for replying, and for your recent edit to PIRA. Joestynes 09:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Ireland

The edit you mention wasn't a mistake though it probably should have come with some kind of explanation and I don't know why I flagged it as minor. Please take my word for it that it wasn't intended as a sneaky edit. People generally don't get away with those anyway. I suppose it's a slightly daft thing to be have disagreement about but I've just put my side on Talk:Flag of Ireland. Iota 18:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UK not a country

Hi, just wanted to quickly apologise for my edit yesterday. I've used plenty of other wikis but this was my first wikipedia edit and I didn't know to check the discussions. I also wasn't aware of the sock-puppet problem (I've created a profile now). I'll try to explain my point in the discussion when I get a chance. Regards, Neil

[edit] "Permitted"

Yes, I did know, but I didn't notice the spelling error when I selected the suggestions to use for the update. Thanks for pointing it out, I've corrected it now. - Mgm|(talk) July 4, 2005 08:40 (UTC)

[edit] Chancing your arm

I thought I saw it in St Patricks - not ChristChurch --ClemMcGann 22:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:English football clubs

Even though the stub category is a sub-cat of this category, the category should still be listed separately. That's always the way with stub notices and categories, they are independent of each other. Stub categories aren't "real" categories as such, they're kind of temporary categories - it's assumed that every article will be expanded beyond stub length eventually. And it doesn't make any sense to split up the main category in two just because some are stubs. sjorford #£@%&$?! 13:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't know that I agree with that policy, but I guess I'll live with it. Is there a Wikipedia: page explaining it? Joestynes 13:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Craic

Image:WikiThanks.png Nice edit. Keep up the good work! Blackcap (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your proposed merge of neoliberalism

Hi! I responded to your request to merge neoliberalism with liberal theory of economics here. Two different policies my friend! --sansvoix 05:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you merged the two different merger discussions (Neoliberalism->Liberal Theory, and Liberal Theory->Classical Liberalism) into one, and stitched in a two way vote as well. Perhaps it would be better to keep the two topics seperate, but on the same page? --Maybe have the votes after the discussions as well? It is confusing for me to read, and I'm familiar with the discussion! Thanks.--sansvoix 21:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classic Rock

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hemel Hempstead revert

Whoops, don't know how that happened - I could swear I just went in and edited that one line out. Oh well, thanks for catching it! sjorford (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Football chant & Cheering merge

Hi mate, I'd like to get something done on the Football chant article, it's been dragging on for a while now. I think the comments on the talk page show a consensus to keep the article, but it's obvious that those sections not related to football (soccer) don't belong there. Would you have any objections to me moving just those sections into the cheering article, but leaving the rest? I'm going to propose that on the talk page. Do you mind if I move the merge tag to reflect that proposal? - N (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

be bold Joestynes 08:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1972 Five Nations Championship

Thanks for the correction to the two articles. As you seem to know rather more than I do about it, could you make similar corrections to the Ireland national rugby union team and Wales national rugby union team?GordyB 22:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I didn't know that much. England didn't play a friendly in 1972. Oh well. Corrected as requested. Joestynes 14:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK Olympic team?

Have you seen this?

--Mais oui! 22:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star (football crest)

Pretty impressive work on the club list and some solid edits. Well done. Wiggy! 22:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-linking from quotes discussion

Hi there. I've added a comment to the discussion here about Wiki-linking from quotes. As someone who has posted to this discussion, I'd appreciate any comments you might have. Thanks. Carcharoth 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just read your comment at the deletion debate. I apologise if I annoyed you by leaving a message on your talk page. I thought it was OK to leave polite messages like this. The reason I do this is past experience I have had of posting comments and getting no response - it is difficult to tell if it is because no-one is watching, or if it is because people have read the comment but decided they had nothing to say, or it was not worth responding. I also tend to try and notify people if the discussion is very old and doesn't seem to have reached consensus. I will try to use my watchlist more and, will wait longer before doing this in the future. Apologies once again. Carcharoth 08:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbor

Thanks for the arbor clarification... I obviously warn't aware of the distinction ;-) one deriving from Anglo-French and the other directly from Latin. So arbor "tool" is one of those Renaissance Latin loans. Best, JackLumber, 19:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YUG 1924?

Hey there. I searched through the edit history of List of IOC country codes and saw that you were the one who added the dates 1924 to 2000 for the historical code YUG.[1] I corrected this to 2002 as the country actually competed as Yugoslavia for the last time at the Salt Lake Winter Games (the name was only changed to Serbia and Montenegro the following year), but I can't find a source for the 1924 date. Another article, 1920 Summer Olympics, claims the previous Olympiad as the year of Yugoslavia's début. And, in any case, the country was only named Yugoslavia in 1929, being the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes before that, so I'm not sure YUG could be said to have been used before that date. I'm not even sure the IOC used country codes back then, as the article mentions nothing of the history of the codes and their use. Do you have any further information to contribute? Cheers.--211.28.181.102 16:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Username change

As you requested, your username has now been changed from Joestynes to Jnestorius. If you haven't done it already, please remember to move your user page and your talk page using the "move" tab on the upper right-hand side of your screen. Redux 22:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Ireland

Please discuss on the Talk page and get consensus before making BIG changes as you did. I reverted for the time being. Evertype 23:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby league

"Start of sentence" is insufficient. This edit decapitalized one cell in a table where all others are capitalized. jnestorius(talk) 18:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll watch that. -- I@n 23:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three points for a win

Hi, I saw you've extended the article Three points for a win with a section ==Other points systems== . Wouldn't it be interesting to create a now article Football point systems or something similar, giving an overview of different point systems, linking to normal 2-1-0 and 3-1-0, and the various other systems, giving a great overview of the various systems, and their importance of populairty. This would keep the Three points for a win-article for what is meant for an extended overview of the 3-points system ? Regards --LimoWreck 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was feeling a bit lazy. Thanks for the prod. Check out Group tournament ranking system. jnestorius(talk) 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, great article ! ;-) --LimoWreck 22:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA template/class

Odd that the template worked and class didn't—I'll have a look at this. —Michael Z. 2006-08-14 20:59 Z

I've looked through all of the style sheets which apply, and can't find a reason that class="IPA" doesn't work in the table: template:IPA merely adds the same class in a span. There must be an intermediate style which overrides the table format, but I haven't found it yet.
Go ahead and revert for now, but I'll still see if I can track down the problem.
Which web browser do you use? Do you use Wikipedia's default monobook skin? I see you don't use a custom Wikipedia style sheet; do you have a custom style sheet configured in your web browser? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2006-08-15 14:38 Z

I just changed the table at Pronunciation respelling for English#Chart to class="IPA wikitable", from class="wikitable IPA". Of course this should not make any difference, but you never know. Please have a look and let me know if there's any improvement. —Michael Z. 2006-08-16 03:40 Z

I use the Cologne Blue skin and no custom stylesheet. It works for me in Monobook, so I guess that tells us where the culprit is... jnestorius(talk) 19:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I found the Cologne Blue skin's main style sheet.[2] It appears to have many font-family declarations, including a highly specific one which would override many declarations in user style sheets or templates, including the class="IPA" attribute on a table:
 #article, #article td, #article th, #article p {
  font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;
 [...]
 }
It doesn't seem to be necessary, since monobook specifies a global font at the top level with no problems—I think Cologne Blue might not be that well thought out, but I can't say for sure after just a quick glance.
You could override these in your user style sheet, but that doesn't help other users of the skin. This will take some more investigation. I'm going to be away from Wikipedia for a while: sorry I can't promise to look at this in the near future. You might consider browsing with Firefox, which doesn't have Internet Explorer's font deficiencies, rendering this whole issue moot. —Michael Z. 2006-08-16 20:29 Z
Ah, I seem to remember it was common to specify fonts this way in the bad old days, when Netscape 4's extremely poor CSS inheritance required it. This style of coding is obsolete now, or ought to be specified in a browser-specific style sheet for compatibility. —Michael Z. 2006-08-16 20:32 Z

[edit] All Ireland XI v Brazil

Well done on this page. Dodge 22:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westmister -> Westminster

Just to let you know I've finally fixed these categories for you. Sorry about the delay, the backlog on CFD is pretty huge at the moment :-( For future reference you could probably have got it done quicker by creating the correct categories yourself, and tagging the misspelled ones with {{Db-author}}, which is designed for dealing with just such mistakes. the wub "?!" 12:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging "Spelling alphabet"

  1. You're right. I mispelled it as "phoenetic"... just played some Age of Empires, had Phoenicians on the brain. lol
  2. Sorry about not putting up a matching {{mergefrom}} tag on the second page. Figured it was automatic.
  3. Didn't notice the redirect :(dumb me), but NATO phonetic alphabet was the article I had in mind, yes.
  4. I'll make sure to leave comments next time. My bad. :)

Sorry about the poor form and thanks for not flaming my talk page. I'm not going to re-add the merge request, but if you care to, I wouldn't mind.

[edit] An Post

While I see that you changed a category in this article, I don't see any point in removing the "See also" wikilinks that were there. This makes it more difficult to find associated articles and less productive for casual users who might not think to click on the category link (all the way at the bottom of the page) but would click on the "See also" wikilink if something interesting was listed. I know that as a new user I would not immediately go into categories. "See also" should be inclusive. I think this is a retrograde edit. Cheers ww2censor 03:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland national football team (IFA)

Discussion moved to Category talk:Football in Ireland#IFA and FAI international teams

[edit] Barnstar of Diligence

Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
I noticed your annotation of the external link you added to the Republic of Ireland national football team article, and looking at your contributions, this is just one example of how much care and effort you put into Wikipedia. It is therefore an honour to recognise your work through the award of The Barnstar of Diligence. Robnpov 00:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Cork vote

There is a new move request and survey regarding Cork. This time it is proposed to move Cork to Cork (city) in order to move Cork (disambiguation) to Cork. You are being informed since you voted commented in the last Cork survey. See Talk:Cork. --Serge 07:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] geohack

Hi, you can alter the content of the geohack page by editing User:Magnus Manske/GeoTemplate. I don't know much about cartography either, I just wrote a wrapper around User:Egils extension and put it on the toolserver when Egils server went bye-bye. It is currently being contemplated wether to integrate Egils extension into Wikipedia installations, abolishing the need for the toolserver. --Magnus Manske 17:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish History

You seem like you have a lot a knowledge with respect Irish history so maybe you would like to comment on the historic basis of this term here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DownDaRoad (talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] I have reverted your edit...

To the article "Fatima" -- pardon me, but I think my version is much clearer in terms of choosing which disambig page the user wants to go to. If you want to change the wording, fine, but I would prefer that you did not revert to the old version which is unclear about the word "Marian" (which is, in itself, a totally different name and "Mary" cannot be turned into an adjective.) However, if you feel so strongly about it, then in the spirit of chanukah I will give you that edit. If you do revert it again, I am going to solicit another opinion. But I am generally averse to edit wars ... I don't care THAT much. - Abscissa 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The references in "Marian apparition" do not use the term "Marian" -- I have never heard of any such word. They all talk about the virtion mary. - Abscissa 15:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eamon Broy

Image:WikiThanks.png Nice work on the article: thanks for the refs! Snoutwood 18:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creating a Category

How do I do it? I read that there is a page to click on to but I cant find it --Vintagekits 23:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ECCC

Well it was the right thing to do, and I can't believe people even got that wrong! But I understand what you're saying, and I should do it the legal way. I suppose if it's the right thing, it's definitely going to happen, but you know how pathetic it can be sometimes with justice, and when justice ain't done, it does really take the piss, and I'm sure we can all agree on that! MAZITO - Saturday, 27 January, 2007; 23:04 (GMT)

[edit] The end of the mediation cabal on the term Volunteer is ending in two days.

The mediation process is ending in two days - you have two days to have you final say and 1. Show any proof that Volunteer is a rank and 2. Leave your final vote in coming to a consensus here. Thank you. --Vintagekits 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar schools

Great stuff, impressive in terms of both rapidity and professionalism. Itsmejudith 16:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indexation of M', Mc and Mac surnames

Fair enough, although no-one has actually expressed opposition, and it might have been better if some note had been put on the talk page where it is appropriate. Sam Blacketer 09:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, not everyone watches every relevant page, which can cause discussions to be missed or duplicated rather than cross-posted. I think when adding a point to a given WP: page, it's always wise to check that page's Talk: page. jnestorius(talk) 10:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: kidnaped spelling

Apologies for that error. I've removed the incorrect entry from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos and will include a note about formatting cleanup in my edit summaries (I'm just using the WP:AWB standard options there). Rjwilmsi

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/n/e/User_talk%7EJnestorius_28b8.html"