User talk:John Foley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I assert to have voted for picture 2. JPF 09:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Leave a Message

It is now 08:24 on Friday, June 13, 2008 Wikitime

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful

Cheers, Sam Spade 00:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Messages

[edit] Further welcome

After seeing you on the bus and in the street I 'see' you here. Welcome aboard. Good to see someone else knowledgeable on legal topics is making a contribution. One project I have in mind and had intended to do - but I got distracted by writing the Fathers' rights page - was to produce a set of guidelines for solicitors in dealing with cases of implacable hostility, etc. Would you collaborate here in such a topic, perhaps linked to Fathers' rights? It might be worth using SFLA Code of Conduct as a starting point. Matt Stan 15:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that implacable hostility and its allied issues need to be set out and have initiated the page. Note that lawyer guidelines are not suitable for an encyclopaedia but may be better dealt with e.g. as a book. JPF

[edit] 1895_in_sports

  • It might be just me, but the format of your addition to 1895 in sports doesn't fit the predominant style of those particular pages - it might perhaps be better to have a separate article on the 1895 Chess Congress (where it'll be possible to go into more detail), and then have a brief line about it in the 1895 in sports page, in the same style as the other links. Average Earthman 10:38, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I'll sort this out. JPF 15:52, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Grand International Chess Congress

Did you have permission to copy the paragraph about 1895 Chess Congress from the book website? If not, it might be a good idea to rewrite it in your own words. We try to be careful with copyrights at Wikipedia. Andris 21:18, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for caution. All that remains is the link to the book website. There was already a more complete page on the Hastings 1895 event which I had overlooked. JPF 21:40, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Father's rights articles

Hi. You need more than a link for an article. Articles that only contain a link are candidates for speedy deletion. Try creating the article in your user space until it is finished and then creating it as an article. - Tεxτurε 23:18, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sunderland

There was a guy at the FNF conference in Coventry last year who was a worker detailed to the Sunderland contact centre. He reported that the mother visitors were all Arabs, and apparently in the Arab community in Sunderland it is more usual for patriarchal family values to persist. I haven't got the name, though the FNF office might be able to help. Matt Stan 08:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting up the article

If one follows a structured approach then the main article should contain a summary which can be fully more detailed elsewhere, which would be my preference for something that has grown too large. Some might consider it a nuisance that you moved the 'Updates' from the main page to the subsidiary page because they might have had their watchlist set to point at the main page, and will hence miss any updates unless they also set watches on the subsidiary pages. Also, unless you make clear some terms of reference in the main page you might find that others perform edits that duplicate what you've moved to the subsidiary page because they don't realise how you've structured the thing. In general in Wikipedia there are no rules about structure, and the ability to link anything to anything seems to negate arguments that the unplanned nature of the enterprise will inevitably lead to chaos. Your indication of relief that I didn't object to your carve up might also be indicative of some self-doubt on your own part? ;-) Matt Stan 08:18, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] T H Taylor

I replied on my talk page. Andris 16:01, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about my Welsh user page going bananas. I was away on holiday at the time and only just checked it out, but it seems okay now. Maybe it was something to do with the new page format? Deb 13:41, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wadham

Apologies if you thought it was a vanity entry - I will find a colleague to re-enter my accolade who will prove that you were being presumptive in your implicit denigration of my work. CJW Martin

[edit] United Nations

the United Nations, from which Wikipedia has received formal recognition,

This is news to me. Can tell me where i can find that? Walter 21:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Refer to [1] where Wikipedia displayed at the United Nations

[edit] Gender role

Dear John - I just found your comment on my user page. First of all: try to avoid writing on other peoples user pages, it's officially considered vandalism - which I understand was not your intention. I gave a reason for the removal on the Gender role talk page. See you there. Also note the section "don't be reckless" on Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages--Fenice 15:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) PS you may however write on peoples talk-pages, thats the "discussion"-tab on the top--Fenice 15:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Gibbon

He seems he went to both then. My original source was the list of former pupils of Westminster, and also the fact that we had a Gibbon prize at the school. It talks about both in http://50.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GI/GIBBON_EDWARD.htm (1911 EB), with a bit more detail than our article - so really we should lift some more text from there. ed g2s • talk 23:47, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Balliol articles

I'm not sure you need to split all those sections from Balliol College, as most of them would surely fit in the main article? It's not that important either way, but if they are going to be separate pages, they should have better names - Balliol College alumni instead of Balliol/Alumni for example - subpages aren't used in the main Wikipedia namespace anymore. sjorford 14:16, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


They would fit on the main page at present but I anticipate that the main page will fill up again with more relevant material. The reason for splitting them out is that the lists dominate the college page unnecessarily. It also makes it look as if the college is more concerned about the past than the future - which cannot be right. I accept your point on the naming convention and will change accordingly. JPF 14:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Balliol Tortoise Racing

You left a message on my page a while back about tortoise racing at Balliol College - thanks for the heads-up. It's been a long time since I've been at Balliol, so I hadn't realized that Rosie the Tortoise was gone. It looks like someone has fixed the entry, however.

I noticed on your page that you recently lost your mother. Very sorry.

-Sasha Kopf

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)


[edit] Image licencing

Hi, I'm working on the image tagging project, I see you uploaded a bunch of images from the Londo wiki- meet, are you releasing these under the GFDL, and if do could you tag them with {{GFDL}} , many thanks --nixie 03:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] PAS

Dear John. I made the Dutch wikipedia-article on PAS ( ouderverstotingssyndroom). Placed an interwiki-link on (your) article on PAS. I have doubts about your text:

There has been much legal and medical argument about whether the term syndrome should be allowed in connection with this type of emotional abuse of children. However, given its prevalence there has been a move to have it recognised as a specific syndrome - parental alienation syndrome. This is a position first advocated by the late American psychiatrist Dr. Richard A. Gardner, who makes the point that inclusion of the word syndrome is specific as regards the cause of the child's alienation, whereas omission of that word is not.

The word syndrome does in my opinion not look at the absence or presence of causes. Compare to things like down-syndrome ( originally not labelled to a cause). I just wrote a short note on that problem in Dutch. Helas I'm not good enough in English to translate it.

I did put this comment on the article-related discussion page as well.

react please on my nl:overleg_gebruiker:zander

--Joep Zander 15:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] photo deleted

Hi, John!

I deleted WikimeetlondonPic6-17.jpg which is a photo of my daughter which you took. I am trying to remove photos of her from the web now for reasons of personal security. (Someone has written a hate site about me, and posted on there a photo of her with insults -- shocking to me, and a little scary.)

If you don't personally have a copy, and you want one, just email me and I'll gladly send it to you. --Jimbo Wales 18:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo

I am saddened to hear of this calumny against you. If anybody deserved support it is you and your wonderful family. I was touched by the loving support they gave you during your visit to London when their patience must have been tested at all the time you spent on Wikipedia matters. The commitment you showed to this wonderful project is exemplary.

The photo you removed is very cute. I had made a point of posting it without naming its subject and had put a comment on the Edit History to that effect on 8th June 2004. I still have the page on my watchlist but unfortunately missed the modification which identified the child. I perfectly understand your reaction and fully support you. I am professionally aware of child protection issues. I have the original so there is no need to send me it.

The collection of photos from that event are so evocative that even with one removed there will still be a worthy record of a memorable meeting. The enthusiasm demonstrated by the participants is palpable. Your remarks were honest and visionary. One of those rare balmy summer days in a Royal Park in London has infused the project with an almost sunny disposition.

Best regards

JPF 10:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Su doku

I've seen people scribbling away at sudoku on the train and not really paid much attention, and just sort of vaguely wondered what they were up to, before forgetting about it; but on Friday I read the BBC News article about it and downloaded a puzzle from the Telegraph's website www.sudoku.org.uk. Now I'm hooked! Jooler 22:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bad luck. If symptoms persist after one month then consult a doctor. JPF 10:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I saw your comment in Wikipedia talk:tomorrow's featured article - before it gets to the front page, Sudoku will need to become a featured article and be approved on Wikipedia:featured article candidates. It looks pretty good, but one weak area which is the lack of explicit references. Well done, by the way. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Where would you see the most useful explicit references? JPF 13:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry - what I meant was that there is no section setting out the references that have been used to write the article and can be used to verify its contents. You may well know this already, so please apologise if I am teaching you to suck eggs, but a featured article has to meet certain criteria against which it is measured on WP:FAC. An important criterion is that it must be "Accurate: Supports facts with specifics and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Includes references, arranged in a ==References== section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources)." At present, while the article has some external links, there is no "References" section at all. It could also do with a somewhat longer lead section - the present short paragraph does not do the article justice. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Some of those external links - especially those that point to Nikoli websites - are references. Actually, I've trying to sort the external links, placing those that are more referential towards the top of the list. I hope that helps. Another note: I deleted your (John Foley's) statement about crosswords from the article due to it being off-topic, but I have moved it to another article where it belongs - the article on the publisher Nikoli, which was apparently just created - and expanded it into a paragraph. I thought I should tell you directly, and I hope you find that acceptable. - ZM Zotmeister 19:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I figured as much (I added the new Nikoli one after I used it to source one of my recent additions). Sorting the "source"-like external links (which are actually used to write and verify the article) from more tangential links should help, yes. Thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Excellent contributions by the way. JPF 19:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
John - I just saw your comments on Wikipedia talk:tomorrow's featured article, and I came here to tell you exactly what Aloan did (but I can see he beat me to the punch). I'm the one who chooses articles to feature on the main page, and I'd be happy to put it up, once it gets promoted from Wikipedia:featured article candidates. →Raul654 20:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I certainly am sixteen. -- Emsworth 18:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, you uploaded Image:Jan1.gif without explaining where it came from, could you contribute to the conversation on its copyright status at commons:Image_talk:Sudoku.gif please, otherwise it will have to be deleted as a copyvio. Matt 29 June 2005 15:20 (UTC)

[edit] Convention on Psychotropic Substances

  • Object The Convention is an international agreement but there is no discussion of the politics surrounding its creation or continuing existence. The article has relatively too much focus on individual substances whilst ignoring the real controversy regarding the legalisation of some drugs. The Convention is regarded as one reason why some countries find it difficult to adopt a more liberal approach to drug use. In short, the article needs to take a more strategic perspective on the issues. JPF 22:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm, there is some mention of the politics in the Controversy section, and the debates that shaped the final text in the Comparison section. Some mention of proposals to amend it is in the Recent trends section. I haven't heard of many proposals to reform this particular Convention; generally the focus is on its sister treaty, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which a lot of people favor scrapping because it cannot be amended. There is also talk of removing drugs from the Single Convention and transferring them to the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, because the latter is a lot more flexible. Drugs can be regulated or completely deregulated internationally without amending the Convention's text, so the debate tends to center on specific drugs and on the other treaties. The 2130 03:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for pointing this out. In my opinion, the article should explain this for the general reader. The current focus on specific drugs gives the impression that the article cannot see the wood for the trees. I know it is setting a high standard for an article, but context is very important in understanding any Convention. Alternatively, perhaps there should be another page which gives the context to all the international drugs treaties. JPF 10:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:John at night.jpg

[edit] Image:John at night.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:John at night.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. Might I suggest as it is a self pic, releasing it into the Public Domain ({{PD-self}} or {{GFDL}})) --Admrboltz 4 July 2005 08:22 (UTC)</nowiki>

[edit] Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics

Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject University of Oxford

WikiProject University of Oklahoma

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Oxford. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Casper Gutman 15:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:BoatraceStartWait.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BoatraceStartWait.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brackenbury v Brakenbury...

Hello—

Just wondering how confident you were about spelling Brackenbury with a 'k'. I'm pretty sure that when I was a member (and subsequently President) of the A&B it was spelt Brakenbury, because people used to get annoyed that everybody spelt it incorrectly [sic] by instinctively adding the 'k'. But I may be misremembering. Any authority on the point would be appreciated! Best wishes, talkGiler 10:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the benefactor Hannah Brackenbury changed the spelling of her name, dropping the 'c'. The Brackenbury scholarship is spelled in the original way: it would be more consistent for the A&B to be spelled the same but it is entirely up to the A&B. Background on the spelling of Bra(c)kenbury JPF 17:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:TourdeFrance.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TourdeFrance.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:TourdeFrance.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TourdeFrance.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JimboWalesLondonWikimeet5Jun04.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:JimboWalesLondonWikimeet5Jun04.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 09:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BoatraceStartWait.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BoatraceStartWait.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)