User talk:Mpntod

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mpntod.

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - Meelar 16:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. I wondered given your contribution to the Cambridge Union Society and related topics, whether you could cast an eye over a controversial para in Kenneth Clarke relating to the Union and Oswald Mosley in the early 1960s. I've put my concerns in the talk page.

PS I'm sure more of the Union Presidents over the years have articles somewhere. Pity that the only ones I remember (1991-94) are Clare Balding and Gavin Barwell. Dbiv 13:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I've posted a comment. Despite neither of us being members of the same political party as Kenneth Clarke, I think we've ended up sticking up for his reputation on this one!
As far as the hunt for Union Presidents is concerned, My searches so far have relied primarily on web searches and the Percy Cradock book which highlights ex-Presidents included in the Dictionary of National Biography. This only includes people who have been dead 10 years and since the Cradock book came out in the 1950s, this means I'm pretty confident in having most of the famous Presidents up until 1901!
There are some interesting ones listed which don't have articles to go with them yet. Where several people link to an ex-President and there's no article to go with it, I've set up a link too - or occasionally I have written a stub.
I've also set up the ex-Presidents category to enable people to flag ex-Presidents as they find them. Mpntod 11:24, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

I'd like your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Thanks. Chameleon 12:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[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] Eugene Leipounski and Benedictines

Thanks for clearing up who Eugene Leipounski is, and that he isn't a sixth century monk. The anons have been reinserting his name into the Benedictine article again. Please help me keep an eye on the article to make certain that it doesn't get put back. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know has been updated
and a fact from the article dew pond, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

[edit] Question for Mpntod

How can you be so passionate about Tesco's corporate imperialism while at the same time working for VODAFONE??!! Surely Vodafone is just as greedy as Tesco?

The shareholder model. Money begets money. Greed begets greed. Whether you work for Tesco or Vodafone the same principle applies - make as much money as you can regardless of the consequences.

The Tesco campaign wasn't about "corporate imperialism". It was about stopping them closing post offices in Whitchurch, Hampshire and in other places. Mpntod 09:05, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Good. That explains it. Many thanks for answering the question, and good luck in your worthy campaign.
I hope one day you can also lead Vodafone into behaving as responsibly as it claims to behave on its corporate responsibility pages. 10:51, Apr 10, 2005

[edit] Good luck!

Just browsing around and noticed you were a nearby liberal democrat candidate, so I just wanted to wish you good luck for thursday! -- Joolz 19:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Mpntod 20:48, May 3, 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Futile

The Liberal Democrats do not have a hope in NW Hants even if they have a good candidate. In this constituency unemployment is very low, and home ownership is high, all of which helps Labour and the Conservatives who were the top two parties in the constituency in 2001, both exhibiting positive swings while the Lib Dems lost votes. This is an obvious Tory hold. Nevertheless, good luck Mr Tod. Maybe you'll get to fight for a different constituency in 2010, but by that time the Lib Dems will probably have changed their views on almost everything anyway.

Glad you think we have a good candidate. And thank you for the good luck wishes. :-)
We've been getting an excellent response from local voters and fully expect to see a very strong swing towards the Lib Dems. As for whether the Tories hold it, I think the voters will tell us that on Friday morning.
Mpntod 20:30, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I see that contrary to the expectations of the guy above, you managed to push Labour into second place. It's a real shame about Newbury though, and losing the council is salt in the wounds. ah well. (PS: you may be interested in North West Hampshire) -- Joolz 14:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] spelling help.

thanks. Rick Boatright 03:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sir George Young

Hello there. Just to let you know, it's custom to keep peerage/baronetage succession and office succession separated (cf Sir George Young, 6th Baronet). Best, Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd noticed that it was, but wasn't clear why - particularly when there are no titles (e.g. labelling one box as offices of state and the second as peerages and hereditary honours) or other information that would make the division serve a purpose. Do you know where the custom comes from - and where the clearest way forward could be most productively discussed? Mpntod 15:16, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
That's a good question. I suppose I'd try either Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage or Wikipedia:WikiProject British Government, especially the latter. Mackensen (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Dilke

I noticed that well over a year ago you set up the disambiguation scheme at Charles Wentworth Dilke. I'm interested in changing the scheme, as I feel that, historically, Sir Charles Dilke the Radical politician is far more notable than his father or grandfather. What I would propose is to move Charles Wentworth Dilke, 2nd Baronet to Charles Dilke, and set up a new disambiguation page at Charles Dilke (disambiguation). I'm willing to handle whatever link-fixing crops up. What do you think? Mackensen (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess it's really a question of naming policy - something I'm not an expert on. I would have thought that it would be best to keep the articles under their current names (since they are precise and unambiguous) - and keep Charles Wentworth Dilke as the disambiguation page (since any of the three could be CWD. However it would make sense to redirect Charles Dilke (which normally would refer to Charles Wentworth Dilke, 2nd Baronet and have a link back to the disambig page from there. Mpntod 20:52, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I've finally gone ahead and done it. The disambiguation page is now at Charles Dilke (disambiguation), while Charles Dilke redirects to Sir Charles Dilke, 2nd Baronet. I moved both articles on baronets to conform with naming convention (adding the Sir and dropping the Wentworth), and then moved their (grand)father to Charles Wentworth Dilke. Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your fault

Hi Martin.

You shouldn't have mentioned this site to me, you know. I am going to have to hold you personally responsible for the various diversions of time and effort listed here: Mikedash 14:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Oops. :-) Mpntod 14:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Hornby

Thank you for the complement – and thanks for the diabetes/diabetics fix. I'm still working on the related Meccano article. --Bruce1ee 07:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irish British category

Hi, I read your comments on my category. As I said in the cfd page, I am not concerned about keeping the phrase Irish British, however I think it is of value to show how Irish people and their close descendants have contributed to Great Britain, therefore I proposed renaming the category Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain, Irish diaspora is a widely used phrase so I think this is acceptable. I would be grateful if you could reconsider your vote to rename Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people Regards Arniep 10:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi I have proposed that the category be renamed Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain which avoids indicating citizenship or attaching labels to the people in the category to which you objected. Arniep 13:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi I am receiving some support for renaming this category Category:Britons of Irish descent now I have removed non British citizens. I would appreciate you reconsidering your vote on this at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_21#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people_Category:Britons_of_Irish_descent. Thanks Arniep 23:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New proposal on Irish British category

Hi, in an attempt to resolve the disagreement over this category I have suggested it be divided into Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain, and Category:Irish people in Great Britain for people who live in Great Britain who call(ed) themselves Irish (whether they were born or grew up in Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland or born to Irish ex pats abroad who now live in Great Britain). As less people such as Tom Paulin, Michael Gambon, Dion Boucicault, Eamonn Holmes fit in the latter category it will be easier to move them from the current category and rename Category:Irish British people to Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain. I would very much appreciate your support on this new proposal at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people__Category:Britons_of_Irish_descent_Category:Irish_diaspora_in_Great_Britain Thanks Arniep 19:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Congratulations

You've got a good case for being a notable Wikipedian now! Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 18:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cambridge Union Page

Greetings. The activity on the Cambridge Union page was brought to my attention and so I've proposed, what I hope is, an agreed NPOV text for the section that keeps getting anon edits. I've noticed you've worked on the page before and would appreciate your comments. Have also posted messages for the other main editors of the article.

nhartman


Hi! I notice you've been active in editing the page Cambridge Union Society during the recent edit-war/ I've made some fairly bold changes to the section and would welcome your thoughts on the Talk Page! Cheers, MikeMorley 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your help in resolving this issue. The hostile user and associated, alleged, sockpuppets seems to have decided to back off after my longwinded detailed post of why many of the things they were writing were false or misleading (but not without first deleting all that to cover it up and then a few more hostile posts in the article ;-) ). I've certainly learned the frustration of trying to deal with users that don't play by the rules, but it seems that in the end we've all manged to sort it. Anyway, the text now is essentially as proposed to begin with and it seems that the active editors of the article agreed with that so, assuming that the hostile user's activity stops, then this issue should (fingers crossed) be finally behind us. I'm fairly new to playing an active role in editing articles so I guess this was like jumping in the deep end! I've been able to work on some other articles too and now hope I can focus most of my attention there. I'll also have to see what other historical bits about CUS that might be of interest. Any advice is of course appreciated. Cheers!

--Nhartman 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "A" vs. 'An"

Hi Martin. Thanks for the message. Glad to see you've still got time to spare for the odd spot of linguistic pedantry! Reponse on my talk page. Hope to see you soon. Mikedash 17:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new Oxbridge user box

Mpntod...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the work in progress and comment on it. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - LA @ 17:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)