User talk:Jguk/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12


Welcome!

Hello, Jguk/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Lst27 21:25, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Jongarrettuk, but User:EDGE moved your page to the nonsense title of Yellow mustard rabbit and blanked it. The page was speedy deleted, so I don't think your user page can be recovered. I did manage to move your talk page back in time, though. --Ardonik.talk()* 20:23, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

EDGE was the original creator of the page, so I don't think any harm was done. Guanaco 21:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's good. Better tell RickK on the Village Pump, too ... he's worried that his speedy delete might have destroyed Jongarrettuk's userpage. --Ardonik.talk()* 21:13, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Re: top-level domains

An ugly stub seed can grow into a beautiful flower: .au There is always a story to tell! —Joseph | Talk 21:54, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that there can be some beautiful flowers for some top level domain names - I just think you'll struggle with all of them! Jongarrettuk 22:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] dippers

Hi, wrt yr recent edits, I'd like to mention that a dipper in cricket is a delivery that curves before pitching. A swing curves after pitching. A dipper compares to the curved pitches in baseball. :) [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:29, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I must have seen you in that final match :), still perplexed as to why Ashley Giles didn't bowl. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]

[edit] Commas and years

Hi, Jongarrettuk. Hey, I want to be friendly too. But is your view on not setting off the year with commas specifically supported by any reference? Maurreen

Hi, Jongarrettuk. Your Google search gave different results than mine. When I tried it, Google gave the exact same results whether one comma was used or two were used. And the sites found varied; both attempts brought both versions. Did you do something special when you searched? Thanks. Maurreen 13:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket tasks

Hi Since you have just joined us and keen to help in the cricket articles, I was wondering if you could help in the following?

  • Adding all the cricket laws to wikipedia (each law as a new article)
  • Creating new pages for each field position.

[[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:26, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Corrie

I expanded all you made light of, as much as I could, anyway. If there's anything more specific you want, please let me know. Mike H 22:00, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

First things first: my gran is from Birkenhead, so that's how I was raised watching it. We saw it on CBC and she introduced me to many English things that one may not see otherwise, being in America. I own the 40 Years on Coronation Street book, which helped in the controversial storylines bit. Tony Warren is actually quoted as saying Agnes the tea lady remarked about Florizel in the 40 Years special, released on DVD here under "This is Coronation Street". Mike H 23:49, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] vfd page

Jon: Your of a single discussion board for the "fringe-candidate" articles seems sound enough, although I'm not sure that it will be necessary at this point.

Big Iron's additions to the vfd page were chosen by virtue of their inclusion on "requests for cleanup". A while ago, someone wrote a series of very short articles on candidates of the Canadian Action Party (I rewrote one of these and added it to my watchlist, which is how I happened to notice this controversy in the first place). I believe that BI has finished going through this particular list now; ergo, I suspect that the current "round" will be used to set a precedent for later decisions (why he added the last three in the middle of this discussion, I can't say).

Incidentally ... if you have any compromise suggestions for this controversy, I'm willing to listen. CJCurrie 23:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jon: The compromise that you've suggested strikes me as basically reasonable (a few other people have already mentioned the same thing on the vfd page, and I'd be willing to accept it if the consensus is clearly for deletion). I have a few caveats, though:

(i) While such a compromise would be acceptable, I'm not yet convinced that it's necessary. Even in spite of Wikipedia's recent expansions and fundraising upgrades, there's still a huge amount of available space for the service's users, and the general consensus among the project's leaders seems to favour a liberal approach to the question of relevance (qv. What wiki is not).

(ii) These "fringe-party bios" take up a very small amount of space, and (questions of relevance aside for the moment), I don't really think there's a pressing need to take them down. I also don't think it's likely that we'll be swamped with these pages in the future, for reasons mentioned on the vfd page. It's possible that some fringe candidates will try to use Wikipedia for promotional efforts, but *those* pages can be deleted fairly quickly.

(iii) There are some advantages to the "bio page" approach that would be lost under the compromise. Candidates who've run for public office on more than one occasion can be linked directly to all relevant "riding results" pages under the current system; under the compromise, this could only be accomplished with redirects and/or duplicated information. If a candidate runs for office several times, the duplication could actually result in *more* space being used than at present.

(iv) Also, the "bio page" approach allows fringe candidates to be listed in categories (ie. politicians of a certain state/party/region, candidates of a certain party, etc. etc.). The compromise wouldn't allow this to continue.

In some ways, I just prefer the current system as a matter of convenience. It isn't really *that* controversial of a Wiki dispute (yet, anyway), so my preference is to go with the "liberal interpretation of relevance". I can understand how some would disagree, of course. CJCurrie 18:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Responses:

The general convention on the vfd page is that two-thirds support is required for a page to be deleted. I suspect that most people who've wanted to vote on the current round of fringe-candidate articles have already done so, and there isn't really a clear consensus on any of them (let alone a 67% consensus one way or the other). The closest to a consensus, at present, are the Dancey and Fernandez pages -- and the support for deletion here is only 58% (discounting The Recycling Troll) or 54% (including The Recylcing Troll). (I'm not completely certain that The Recycling Troll is a real troll, and every other contributor seems genuine enough).

I believe, for this reason, that the articles will probably survive the vfd page on at least technical grounds.

My concern, at the moment, is not so much with the technical deletion requests as with the broader principle. I think we can agree that there *is* a place on Wikipedia for some information on fringe candidates -- it's such a matter of determining the parameters and form that such information should take. I recognize that there are some advantages and disadvantages to *both* the "bio pages" and the "short bios on a central page" approaches (although I'm not sure if we should be determining Wikipedia policy based on the number of people likely to read any particular page ...), and I could very easily reconcile myself to the latter if it's the popular will. I'm just not certain that the latter course is necessary.

I wonder if it might be advisable to call in a mediator (not an arbitrator) at some stage, to determine a semi-official policy for later disputes that might arise on this subject. I'm not sure that we've quite reached this stage yet, but it's an option to consider. CJCurrie 19:57, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

re: ensuring that interested parties actually read these pages

Actually, before the current vfd controversy emerged, I was considering creating some new "Category" pages for fringe candidates in the last Canadian cycle (for instance, Category:Communist Party of Canada candidates, 2004 federal election, including all bio pages and having links to/for the party's page.) If accessibility were the only concern, this would probably be a sufficient precaution [I do realize that there's more involved than just this...].

One way or the other, I'm sure there are *some* people who are interested in the current bio pages; deleting them without necessity, as such, strikes me as a bit odd.

(I've think we've taken this discussion about as far as it's going to go for the time being.) CJCurrie 20:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Khrushchev 's shoe

You are mistaken about Khrushchev 's shoe. See [1] Mintguy (T)

Did you read any of the above link? It is written by Khrushchev's granddaughter. Mintguy (T) 08:44, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The point is she has a reason to get the anecdote correct and if you read it you will see that she searches out contemporary sources to find out exactly what happened. Mintguy (T) 09:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've already amended my post in line with other neutral references provided to me. Jongarrettuk 10:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, only I just re-read your comment on my talk page and noticed where you say "I wouldn't accept an article written by a granddaughter who presumably wasn't there at the time definitive". I hadn't noticed that before.

Anyway, forget that. I would like to invite you to The Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Mintguy (T) 10:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sesame Street

Mind commenting on the Featured Article page? -- user:zanimum

[edit] Caught

Hi! The Caught article you have forgotten to add the first most common dismissal. The sentence is incomplete, please complete. IMO isn't caught the most common mode if dismissal? [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:00, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the statistics regarding the most common dismissals. I've copyedited the page to add more detail to it. I've also added two new categories 1. Cricket Rules 2. Cricket Dismissals to be added on each relevent page. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]

[edit] Library Subject Headings

I posted a reply to your query on the Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks page about my noting what the Library of Congress subject heading is. Hope my latest reply is more clear. If I can be of help with your articles, do let me know (I've a long list of articles on my page). Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:39, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] World citizens, "Coro", and related matters

Hello, Jon, and welcome! I watch cricket and Coro ("Corrie"??) a bit too (though - with the former Ms Barlow's baby still on the way - I think we are a few months "behind" in New Zealand; "caught behind", one might say). You sound as if you could be a good addition to the list at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/World citizens. On the subject of "bit less US-centric", maybe you would enjoy Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. Keep up the good work anyway!
Robin Patterson 03:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sept. 11 attacks

About the discussion on the title: Why don't you maintain your rationale, and I'll maintain mine. Maurreen 06:33, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The fact that you don't like my rationale and don't wish to rebut it is not reason enough to delete it. And the view that we should leave the rationale where it was at any given point is your opinion. Talk pages are intended to talk, not wipe out what somebody else has to say. Maurreen 06:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Did you just delete the Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks content, or did you archive it somewhere without telling anybody? Please don't delete Talk page contents. RickK 06:55, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't mean to do this, but it appears you have taken over all the talk pages for the article. I disagree strongly. I am comfortable with archiving -- if we discuss it first. Maurreen 06:58, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

About your unintended results on the talk page: Apology accepted. I'll try to forget that it happened. Maurreen 14:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] About the usage "BCE'

You've been "correcting" BCE to BC, and you may not know that BCE is a widely-offered courtesy to readers who are not Christians. The designation "A.D." is often retained as a reciprocal courtesy in contexts of Christian mythology and history. Consistency at Wikipedia is useful only within articles or within closely-related sets of articles. If you keep the reader always in mind, you'll rarely err. --Wetman 00:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I second that opinion. At the school I attended, the use of BC was deemed archaic in academic contexts. We really should be avoiding it. --Ardonik.talk()* 00:32, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've been trying to get consistency within articles and also to link all dates in. So it's a dual purpose. To the extent that I miss a few things and make consistent things that don't need to be made consistent, that's a slip up on my part, we all make mistakes. jguk 06:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi. You've been modifying several article with dates BCE to BC. A recent example is Indo-Greek Kingdom. Could you please maintain BCEs and CEs, and when consistency is needed, actually replace the BC and AD by their more modern versions, rather then making everything consistent with the oldest usage? Thank you PHG 21:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I modify in accordance with stated policy in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. This requires consistency. There's no reason to prefer BCE and CE over BC and AD. Indeed, since everyone understands BC and AD, but only a few understand BCE and CE, BC and AD should be preferred. But despite this, I try to stay within the confines of the Manual of Style and only convert to BC/AD where those terms are clearly in the majority in an article, it's about 50:50 and I can't see which term is preferred in the article visually, or where the article has recently (eg within the last month) been BCE/CE'd in a way contradictory to the Manual of Style. No doubt occasionally, I get it wrong. But given I am trying to wikify dates along the way and link them in (in the hope that sometime someone with more computing ability than me will write a converter like they did for American v British style dates). jguk 22:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As also pointed by Wetman and Ardonik, BCE/CE is more culturally neutral and is prefered for most datation now. It should be prefered to the BC/AD format in most cases. Regards. PHG 22:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not getting into this argument, since we shan't agree. I was just doing two things: Applying the Manual of Style rule of consistency; wikifying some links. Nothing more, nothing less. jguk 22:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Consistency, nothing more, nothing less"? In the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom article, you used two occurrences of BC to change the whole article from BCE/CE to BC/AD (about 30 changes). What kind of neutral application of consistency is that? You are not following your own stated principle above that you "try to stay within the confines of the Manual of Style and only convert to BC/AD where those terms are clearly in the majority in an article", which on the principle is fair enough.
One more thing, I just re-mofidied the Jomon article to keep BCE/CE consistency (where, by the way, BCEs were already the majority): why would you revert it to a BC/AD version if you actually only strive for consistency? By the way, the subject matter of that article being Japanese history, the BC/AD usage can hardly be less appropriate.
I do approve of your effort for consistency, but please do not use consistency as an excuse to change all articles you encounter with BC/ADs. Why don't you limit you efforts to those articles that are already clearly BC/AD in content? Regards. PHG 23:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] John Vanbrugh

Ref: Featured Article Candidates. I'm glad at least you don't think John Vanbrugh, is rambling (JV talk page) and you haven't said it's boring, ill informed, trite or of no interest to anybody. Its not that long either, and has some pretty pictures, to break up the long texty bits - so where are you finding the harm with it - If everything is butchered as you suggest we may well return to the kindergarten. Giano 21:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Obviously "being polite" can have varying degrees and levels. I hope you did not find my message impolite, that was not the intention. Giano 21:47, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Style guide

Concerning your poll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: I am curious about what has spurred you to this and similar matters. Maurreen 07:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. I ask you to withdraw your poll and bring up for discussion two separate and individual matters: the abbreviation "U.S." and the serial comma.
2. I ask whether any specific events spurred you to the poll and similar matters. Maurreen

Concerning your statement that “I don't like my perfectly good English being 'corrected',” I’d like to remind you about a couple of things.

On the nature of Wikipedia: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it."

As you wrote in the article on style guides, “Style guides used by publishing houses and newspapers set out rules that dictate that one acceptable form should be used rather than other acceptable forms.” Wikipedia is a publisher. Maurreen 17:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry in advance, if I can't remember every detail about this matter.

Is there any way in which you and User:Maurreen would be able to reach a compromise about this amongst yourselves? (S)he seems to be troubled by your decision to start a poll. I do agree it may attract lots of attention, but the current system has been in effect some time and it seems to be working. Why change it? Anyway, make sure you know the difference between majority and concensus, since that has slipped up many editors in the past. (You may have noticed, I'm against the idea right now. However, I'd like you and Maurreen to come together before this can turn into a full-fledged conflict. Maybe promising this will just be an initial poll will be enough...) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 13:07, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Why Maurreen opposes the poll.
How would you respond to the following points (copied from my talk page)?
 My opposition is less a matter of being opposed to a given poll (especially when it's not out of the blue) than an an accumulation of frustration. jguk has deleted my comments on a talk page, although he later restored them. He made substantive changes to the Wikipedia Manual of Style with no discussion.

In the article on style guides, he removed authors' initials from the sections for links and references, to support his idea of uniformity in language (not British or American), though he restored them. When he reverted my attempted at a compromise on the page, his only comment was that we were still hadn't resolved our dispute on the article. When I suggested getting outside help so we could work things out, he was no help.

I would not object to his goals if he would conduct himself in a better manner. Maurreen 03:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
--[[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:37, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I act in good faith and assume others are acting in good faith. It's a shame Maurreen cannot do the same. One accident (for which I apologised), and which was not really different from Maurreen's accidental deletion of the bottom bit of the Manual of Style; an error whilst I was a newbie that wasn't repeated; and bringing up points in a dispute on a page Maurreen suggested I contribute to and which were resolved through the talk page. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. jguk 20:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)