User talk:Ford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just throw your comment at the bottom. I will handle the formatting. — Ford
 

Contents

[edit] 2004 edits

(To Astrotrain) What exactly was your point on the 2004 page? Indonesia and Cambodia not important enough for you? You do not seem like a vandal, but such deletions are unjustifiable, unless your world truly stops at the British shoreline.
— Ford 22:13, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Hello Ford, I am sorry that you are still disputing the 2004 article and have tagged it for neutrality. I have added a reply to your message on discussion board. As I have said before, I do contribute to the 2004 page reguarly, and do attempt to remove what I regard as "unimportant". Your election news should really be in 2004 in politics or perhaps you should create a Elections in 2004 page so that minor world countries can be entered. Can I ask what particular entry to the 2004 page offended you so much please? Astrotrain

I am more offended (and my sense of neutrality is offended) by your repeated exclusions of changes of government, including very significant changes of government, in parts of the world that you do not consider important, but most reasonable people do. Your language, and the suggestions of what are important enough, or would be important enough, to warrant inclusion under your standards, are, as I said, parochial. You have a narrow conception of what matters. I have read your comments on the 2004 page, and you are quite dismissive of the rest of the world, while unaware of the relative insignificance of things of your interest. Certainly Britain remains an important country, but not to the level that you rate it. The royal doings are trivial compared to actual changes of government. Your favoring of such business over matters of genuine import is baffling to me, and is the main reason that I tagged the article. But you can also be sure that I will keep the article tagged as long as there is so much as one use of a royal honorific. You may think the queen is majestic, but that is a point of view not shared by most (in the world, that is, not your corner of the world).
— Ford 12:28, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Ford, the Queen has the style Her Majesty in the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and the entire Commonwealth. She is also styled HM in other parts of the world. Remove it if you wish, but it still is the case. In my opinion, Prince Harry's fight with photographers is a significant event, as it is quite unprecedented. Elections in Cambodia, Georgia, Burma and other countries like these are only important in those countries, and not to the world. As I suggested, create a Elections in 2004 page and stop being so childish. There is no neutrality dispute on 2004, I gave the royals their proper styles as Wikipedia naming convention demands.

Anyway, Indonessia has been re-added, and I have not removed this as other users have said they think it is important. Be glad and happy my loyal subject!

His Majesty King Astrotrain!!!

(See also the long discussion at 2004 – Removal of “unimportant” events)

[edit] What is and is not a word

(To Sunborn) I do not really care whether we use ‘till’ or ‘until’ in the article on Muhammad, but I do care that you made an unnecessary edit and then offered a mistaken reason for it. ‘Till’ is, in fact, a word, a perfectly-acceptable word, and it has the same meaning as ‘until’. You might want to consult a dictionary before making such a comment.
— Ford 00:53, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

I did check the dictionary before making the edit, I am not as ignorant as thou! I just must have missed it. It is there now, you are correct, besides 'till' is a very colloquial word and should not be used in the wikipedia --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 14:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC).

‘Till’ is not a colloquial word; substituting ‘until’ is a genteelism. This is a stylistic argument, though. If you want to exchange the one for the other based on the way it sounds to you, so be it. Just be careful what you say. On that point, I would ask whether you were joking or misspeaking when you wrote “I am not as ignorant as thou!”. Joking, I hope, because it would be an even-worse misstatement, since thou art at least as ignorant as I, and likely many times more so.
— Ford 03:03, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies, I was considerably angry after a particularly bad mid-term. I shouldn't have called you ignorant. However, it is of my opinion that you are making problems where there are none. Hence I think you are a troll, or at least part troll. ---The Sunborn

Apology accepted. And I do not even object to the ‘troll’ comment, since I take that as an objective opinion, even if it is not true. I came to Wikipedia as a consumer, and was enthusiastic about the information available. But some of it was wrong, and some of it, despite the claim of neutrality, was biased. Therefore I began contributing. I did not create any problems in Wikipedia. Wikipedia had problems, even according to its own standards, and I attempted to fix them. My results have not met with universal acclaim, but surely you do not suppose that Wikipedia was a pastoral, harmonious community before I arrived? To consider one of my edits of Muhammad, I am not the only one (even at Wikipedia) who believes that the use of PBUH in an encyclopedia article is wholly unacceptable, that it transforms an article from an objective presentation of reality into a homily. If you consider any of my other contributions trolling, I would like to know which, since at every point where I have met with resistance, I have also met with support.
— Ford 01:00, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

[edit] Proper punctuation

(To RickK) - For what it is worth, you may count me as a second person who believes that the punctuation changes made by 201.129.245.179 on the 2004 page were an improvement, almost to the last item, and that your reversion, therefore, made the page worse, not better. I believe your conception of “proper punctuation” needs some refinement before you next venture to charge an editor with ignorance of punctuation rules. On the other hand, I would drag out the deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic analogy here, noting that there are greater problems by far on the page than the punctuation.
— Ford 01:49, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

Please point to any reputable English grammar which says that commas should be used in such a fashion. RickK 23:12, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Point to a reputable English grammar that doesn’t. You claimed to know what proper punctuation is; the burden of proof is on you. The rule is that a noun in apposition is a parallel element, and must be set off by commas on each side, so that the underlying structure of the clause resumes after the interruption. A single comma can only set off the preceding material as a phrase or clause outside the structure of the clause in question. The same rule holds for a noun being used as a modifier (like ‘Saudi Arabia’). If you are in doubt, you can say the sentence aloud, pausing at each comma, and ask yourself which sounds more consistent with logical sentence structure.
I would particularly point to the entry for February 26, where ‘Former British cabinet minister’ is set off by a single comma, as though it were some sort of adverbial phrase, instead of a direct modifier of ‘Clare Short’. Worse yet, it sounds like a vocative. Think of the difference: “Senator George Jetson is on the phone.”, versus “Senator, George Jetson is on the phone.”.
— Ford 02:27, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

You really, honestly think that the commas in Several British Airways flights from London Heathrow Airport to Washington D.C. and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, are cancelled and Tony Blair makes an unannounced trip to Basra, Iraq, to give a speech are correct? Sorry, they're wrong. RickK 04:30, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin, beneficence

Though I understand your aversion to combining Stalin with the word "beneficence", I think the term might actually be accurate in this context. Like Hitler, Stalin gained the support of his populace through the creation and expansion of the social welfare system. Perhaps the term "welfare" would be more appropriate than beneficence, but there's no particular reason to pretend that the hugely beneficial socialist welfare system did not exist. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can see this is going to be an issue. Unnecessarily, I think, and it is going to make Wikipedia look like a joke in the meantime. But I will have to address it on the talk page. Look for my reply there.
— Ford 02:05, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

[edit] Latin language

Greetings, Ford... Would you be willing to cast a vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves in re the Latin move? —Tkinias 02:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] December 18th Murder on 2004

I appreciate your denunciation of Astrotrain's insistence that this be included. Although I essay not to become intangled in Wikipedia edit wars, there are some serious defects in this article that I believe deserve addressing. The aforementioned was one I noticed as a casual observer, but after delving more deeply into the controversies surrounding this entry, it has become increasingly difficult for me not to observe others. With this likely being the sentiment of other users, how could there be a question as to whether or not this page is in dispute? Earthliberator 20:15, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There really is no sensible way to question that the page is disputed. As I keep saying, it is a simple matter of language. Astrotrain is presently arguing that it should not be disputed; but is incapable of registering that it factually is disputed. I would go further, and claim that it is obvious that the page is biased, not neutral, and should be disputed. Nothing will avail to persuade Astrotrain of that. Curiously, I tagged the article originally to avoid a brewing edit war. Astrotrain and I were reverting each other, and rather than persist with that, I simply tagged the article and let Astrotrain have his/her way. Now Astrotrain wants to remove the tag as well; apparently I am not allowed to have an opinion on the page at all. Others have entered the fray, and while there have been other disputes among the other editors, the bulk of editors have likewise concluded that Astrotrain’s choices of what to include and exclude are biased. Astrotrain simply does not get it. I originally found the encyclopedia a wonderful resource. Now I find it a flawed resource, and a frustrating project, because I have no choice about which editors to work with. I imagine you will quickly get as discouraged as I am. I spend entirely too much time arguing with those of closed and narrow minds. Still, there are some splendid things about the encyclopedia, so I am not giving up just yet.
— Ford 21:38, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

[edit] CanisRufus

See Wikipedia_talk:Bots. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:58, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Titles

I have just read your comments about the use of titles such as "Her Majesty", which you claim are POV. I think you are quite wrong. It is your proposed ban of them which is actually POV. These are conventional courteous forms of address comparable to "Mr". Calling the Queen "Elizabeth Windsor" is blatantly an expression of a republican point of view. You are not arguing for neutrality, but for people with your type of opinions to have control over the Wikipedian lexicon. Philip 05:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Pope

OK, I'm being deliberately sarcastic in my last edit summary - but how do you propose to make the article neutral? I see from your userpage that you do not believe we should consider him to be anything other than Mr Karol Wojtyla.

Should we go to RfC or have a vote? jguk 23:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The pages where I have reached compromise on this issue are Tenzin Gyatso, Mahathir bin Mohamad, and Muhammad, all of which describe the titles and honorifics without actually using them. We can drop ‘His Holiness’ from the beginning, and append a sentence noting that his formal style is ‘His Holiness’, or that he is addressed and referred to by many of his supporters as ‘His Holiness’.
For the record, and I have already stated this, I consider John Paul to be no better than anyone else, but I do consider him to be the pope (which is to say, the head of the Roman Catholic Church), and I usually honor his desire to be known as ‘John Paul’; though it was never my understanding that in taking his papal name he was in any way rejecting his birth name, so both are consistent with the idea of self-identification. For all we know, he considers himself Karol Wojtyła, and his papal name was imposed by tradition.
On a related issue, I do think it is better to resolve neutrality disputes, but if they exist, they must be acknowledged. And I am acting in good faith, presenting my reasons clearly and logically, and summarizing my edits honestly, so I think I am entitled to a page that meets my objections, or if not, then the right to dispute (as the case may be) the neutrality or factual accuracy of any page I choose. I am not a troll; I honestly believe that the use (as opposed to description) of these honorifics is not neutral and, moreover, is not in accord with objective usage elsewhere. I think I am making the encylopedia more of what it aspires to be.
— Ford 00:31, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page rather than just reverting me! Kind regards, jguk 21:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:IPA

(To Mzajac) I was glad to have you introduce me to the template. I was excited to use it, and spent quite a bit of time adding it to one page in particular. Your recent changes have caused it to cease functioning on my computer entirely, though. I’ll give you some time to figure out how to accomplish your recent goal while still preserving its earlier usefulness; but if you cannot, we should revert your last two changes to your version before January 14. You know far more than I on this subject, so I will look forward to seeing the product of your efforts.
— Ford 22:02, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Hi Ford. Sorry, I missed your note on my talk page because I was distracted by the following one, added six minutes after yours. Thanks for your patience. I did find out that my changes to Template:IPA didn't work, soon enough.

I've tried another technique, which should apply the font specification in MSIE, but do nothing in all other browsers. Please let me know if IPA looks right to you now.

I've also given the code an HTML class attribute (class="IPA"), so you can override or supplement the font styling in your personal user style sheet (e.g., try putting .IPA { color: green; } into User:Ford/monobook.css).

Cheers, Michael Z. 19:40, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

It looks fine today. I noticed that you had fixed it, as I supposed you would. I appreciate your efforts (and even your failed experiments) on this matter, because I believe they improve the encyclopedia for its users. Carry on.
— Ford 20:17, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

[edit] 66.20.28.21

(To Alteripse) You offered, at Talk:Marietta, Georgia, to protect the page. You also cite the arbitration, which I am familiar with. Is there nothing else, nothing more forceful or effective, that was envisioned by that ruling? User:VirtuousO has just reverted to the 66.20.28.21 edit of Marietta, Georgia and Phil Gingrey, two pages on which I have been reverting this same edit for some time now. VirtuousO also inexplicably reverted two other pages, Tenzin Gyatso and Syngman Rhee, or at least it would be inexplicable but for the obvious fact that 66.20.28.21 is engaging in specific retribution against me. (Check the user contributions, and then look at the histories of those pages. The Syngman Rhee edit was pointless disruption in the first place, and VirtuousO restored it after I reverted it.) Is it not possible to determine this user’s IP address, or the IP address of the other sockpuppets operating on these pages, and compare them? Can the admins not develop some evidence that 66.20.28.21 is circumventing the ruling, and take action? Those of us following the career of this editor have mostly viewed it as a source of unacceptable bias constantly inserted through edit wars; but now we are dealing with simple vandalism. What can you do?
— Ford 05:51, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

I am a new admin, and haven't done this before, but let me try to help. See my note on the WP:RFAr page. I copied your request there. alteripse 14:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the consensus is for further disruption of this kind to be dealt with immediately, which is good. On the other hand, why must we wait until further disruption? This has been going on quite a while since the decision was made, and I do not see that there has been any enforcement.
— Ford 00:22, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

I share your distress at our lack of an immune system. Since I just became part of the "administration" here, I'll see what I can do. I think the applicable concept here is "mole whacking" in hope that the moles tire before the admins do. Wish me luck. alteripse 00:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2004

In what way will you try to resolve the NPOV issue? I would like to know so that I can unlock that page. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect the page, join Talk:2004 as a regular editor, and then make your suggestions. Had you offered your services as a mediator, things might have gone differently. But you have arrogated to yourself the right to arbitrate, and that is beyond your mandate as an administrator. I am not a vandal and I will not be treated as such. I am not a truant on probation. I will not present to you some promise of “good” behavior so that you will allow me to do what you want. Stand down, and then we’ll talk, not the other way around.
— Ford 02:51, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't believe that was a solution. Give me a proposed solution then we'll talk. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If this is your attempt to look reasonable, it is too little, and too late. You have already used what force you have. I disagree with your approach, your motives, and your proposals. If I wasn’t willing to go along with you under threat, I am certainly not going to go along with you after you have carried out the threat. Come down and join the rest of us, Ta bu shi da yu. The power has gone to your head. You have no right to force a solution on the rest of us, and no right to force me to participate in your choreography.
— Ford 03:11, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

So in other words, you are not prepared to edit this article in a way that will provide a resolution to the problem? If this is the case, I suggest you reconsider the way you edit Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do not translate my words. I mean what I say, nothing more or less. I will not negotiate under threat. I am not prepared to make a commitment to you as if you have a right to demand it. You do not.
— Ford 03:56, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Well, I would appreciate a solution. However, if you don't want to be part of the process, that's up to you. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to unlock the page. I would appreciate it if you would work towards a solution. Don't just readd the NPOV tag, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Republics

Need your help and/or advice. The British Wikipedian Republican Party sought fit to delete Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic from Wikipedia. There is a terrible brouhaha at Talk:Republic. They won't even allow an external link! SimonP really doesn't know what he is doing. They deleted the Classical definition of republic and created mixed government and politeia instead. The official title of mixed government is a Republic and the Romans translated "politiea" as Republic. And then to top it off the new article Classical republicanism doesn't refer to the Classical republics of Crete, Sparta, Solonic Athens, or Rome but to Machiavelli's ideology. How can that be when Venice in the 13th century instituted a mixed government and called herself a "Republic".

With Jwrosenwieg and Kim Bruning there was a tacit agreement a year ago to have republic be the modern meaning and a [Classical definition of republic] to describe the ancient republics of Hellas and Rome and their influence. To say the least the "Republic section" is all messed up. We need some clarification. I have new information but User:Snowspinner won't let me bring this back up for undelete. (I do grant that a little bit of the Classical definition is original but the rest is not.) I will not let Sparta be called anything but a republic! I will not let the British wikipedian modern republicans strip Sparta, (my heritage and roots) of her rightful name. She is a Classical republic and needs to be called such! At the least, where is the damage in having an external link?WHEELER 15:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Styles in articles

I remember some time ago you were involved in a debate over whether or not styles should be used in articles, in particular I believe it was on the Pope John Paul II page. Currently there is a survey being done in order to determine what Wikipedia policy should be on this particular subject. It is being done at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles. Titanium Dragon 10:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I have largely ceased editing. I do not know when if ever my editing will resume. I have given you your vote, though, since of course I agree with you and your efforts should be encouraged. I was driven out primarily by the arrogance and dishonesty of Ta bu shi da yu on 2004 (and by the rousing reception that his abuse met with from other editors), but prior to that I had ceased editing a few pages, and specifically John Paul II, because fellow editors were so completely biased and closed to reason. This is not going to change. The policy I directed you to earlier on this page remains my preference, and the only one consistent with neutrality and accuracy. But the partisans of adulation will not be reasoned with, and having the same idiotic discussions with them over and over is far too frustrating and time-consuming. — Ford 21:19, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Hi Ford. I followed a link from Titanium Dragon to your talk page, and thought I'd pop in here. Don't give up. There are more people who agree with you regarding the prefixed use of styles than disagree, but those who disagree are well organized and apparently vote as a bloc. Because we are using a Condorcet method, rather than an easily dominated type of survey, the really worst case scenario I can envision now is a deadlocked decision. Hang in there. Whig 07:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and please do let others know about the survey, it's ongoing through the 14th. Whig 07:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Survey completed

You may be pleased to know that the survey is completed and that the use of prefixed styles was defeated. There is currently a ratification vote underway to determine whether a consensus exists for the prevailing convention. Whig 06:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Elizabeth II

Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 08:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thanks for your support for my adminship. I read over your "Leading frustrations". I agree with all of them and hope to avoid contributing to the first one. Cheers, -Willmcw June 28, 2005 19:17 (UTC)

[edit] Indiana Wikipedians

Hello! Please consider adding yourself to Category:Indiana Wikipedians. Thanks! Kurt Weber 7 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

A page that you joined to help with associate with other members of the Wikipedia community is on VfD. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedian citizens of the world, and the related page Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state. Cognition 09:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World Citizen userbox, {{User:1ne/Userboxes/User world}}

Hi, I noticed the message saying you're a World Citizen, I would like to invite you to add {{User:1ne/Userboxes/User world}} to your user page if you wish to proclaim it in a more effective way, and this template will also add you automatically to the Wikipedians with World Citizenship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GWU

Hello, I'm trying (again) to get The George Washington University moved to George Washington University. Since you weighed in on this when it came up last year, I thought you might like to weigh in again. john k 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Situation of administrator abuse

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [1] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright abuses

Hello, this message is because of your comments opossing Ta bu shi da yu admin. Tens of thousands of images have been deleted by a small handful of wikipedians, citing "fair use".

Would you be interested in joining a group on wikipedia which counters the heavy handed tactics of the copyright police. We can't fight them on my own. User talk:Ed g2s has began deleting fair use image on every person's user page and on several other pages, inspired by WP:FUC which was written by another paternal copyright policeman with absolutly no legal training and little understanding of copyright law. Ta bu shi da yu created the WP:FUC page and was responsible for deleting hundreds of Time magazine covers and refused to stop even after Time magazine sent an e-mail allowing wikipedia to use the images.

We stared this page, with this purpose: User:Travb/Misguided and heavy handed tactics of some admins regarding copyright

Please tell others about this project. The paternal copyright police are well organized and are intoxicated with their own trival power here on wikipedia. Like most authoritarian personalities, these misguided copyright fanatics have finally have overstepped the bounds of good sense and restraint, when they began deleting tens of thousands images from wikiusers' pages. Only a large number of wikipedians will stop this abuse. Travb 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

Dear Ford

I've been recently involved on the subject of Kosovo, and whilst I was combing through the archive talk pages I came accross your involvment on the subject. Well since you've left it, there have been a whole load of heated discussions on Kosovo and constant revert wars. It has gotten so bad that the case is now up for Arbitration and the article is locked.

I am presenting a case against the biased version and I am also trying to prove admin bullying by ChrisO, who you've had an experience with. It would be great if you could make your contribution to the case, it will be highly appreciated. Tonycdp 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I am semi-retired from editing. Editing Kosovo, and attempting to discuss it, was one of the worst experiences in my active period at Wikipedia. I have no desire to put myself back into that situation. The page will remain biased and inaccurate for at least as long as it takes for the territory to be recognized as independent by the majority of the world’s states, after which the flock of mindless editors who cannot distinguish between political doubletalk and verifiable reality will suddenly recognize that Kosovo is, in fact, not part of Serbia. While towards the end I did come to find ChrisO to be an untrustworthy editor, I had no interactions with him (that I recall) as an administrator. And I also tried my hand at ending administrator abuse, which was the worst experience in my active period at Wikipedia. I think I will not try that again.
— Ford 15:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ford, Thank you very much for your input, it will be noted. Tonycdp 15:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wholesale unabashed theft of much of your page

I saw it and I liked it and I am in wholesale agreement with you. I apologize for my transgressions. I hereby retroactively request the use of this stuff. If not I will remove it post haste... --Tomtom9041 02:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The way you have now worded your page is acceptable. Of course, I cannot object if you genuinely believe the things that I believe. But I do think it important that you note whose words and experiences those are, as you have now done.
— Ford 19:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As I say, Icame, I saw, I laughed in agreement, But I have one question, Was that beats per minute for an African or European Swallow?--Tomtom9041 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] request for input on pre/postnominals

Greetings - if you have time your input on my proposal would be appreciated regarding the use of Sir/Dame as an honorific title since it seems you've been thinking about this longer than I have. I'm also in favor of getting rid of postnominal letters. Ripe (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume based on your remarks that you have seen my own proposals on the matter. I agree with your points, as far as I read; but you can see from the response you generated that you are not going to win the fight. There is a vocal and relentless group of editors at Wikipedia who insist on these clearly-biased usages, and then vocally and relentlessly insist that they are not biased. In particular, there is a vocal and relentless group of self-debasing British royalists who, when they are not complaining about the oppression they suffer through a supposed US bias at Wikipedia (while all evidence shows that they get their way plenty), are carefully monitoring every page, relevant or not, to ensure that the correct medieval obeisance is paid to every aristocratic or well-connected “knight” or “lord”, no matter how despicable that person’s life is or was. And, it goes without saying, they deny that they are injecting any bias, let alone debasing themselves. I, of course, being sensible, believe that the default, neutral position is that all persons are of equal value, and find it ludicrous that anyone should care that this or that government, let alone this or that unelected beneficiary of preposterous hereditary privilege, should be able to bestow a title that we must then all treat as a part of a person’s name. But you have seen the arguments that these fools are making, yes? The bogus distinctions between honorifics and titles, for instance? Privileging “honors” over “qualifications”? Trust me, they will never give up. Wikipedia just attracts idiots of a certain kind; in this case, people who not only devour every page of Royalty but yearn to write for it themselves. Good luck.
— Ford (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)