User talk:Thesocialistesq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Thesocialistesq, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Landon 03:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, have fun at Wikipedia, but not to the extent of vandalism ;)
Also glad to see fellow highschoolers! You might want to go put yourself on the Wikipedians in High School list (I'll try to find the link for you in a bit here) -- Landon
Deary dear, i wasn't expecting such a warm welcome... thank you.Thesocialistesq 17:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's the link for you: Wikipedians in High School
Oh wow, I just found you messaged me. I need to start contributing under my account again. Hullo Thesocialist! -Vav11
Indeed you do. You have much to learn, young one... Thesocialistesq 06:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians in high school page. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in high school for instructions. --Cooksey 19:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'll put it on your user page and you can take it off if you don't want to be categorized --Landon 20:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Excellent, thank-you, go ahead. Thesocialistesq 20:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of 'liberal wikipedians' category

Hi. I saw you're (like me) listed in this category which is up for deletion. Hoped you'd like to vote in favor of keeping it... Thanks! Larix 02:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for voting! Larix 15:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Socialist, Social democrat, or liberal?

I generally thought these ideologies were seperate. User:Canadianism, logged out.

Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism are liberal ideologies... without classical liberal principles to guide them, they could go no where. As for the terms "Democratic Socialism" and "Social Democracy", they're the same thing in my mind. One just goes moves right from marxism and the other moves left from capitalism... So yes, i am a liberal first, then a Democratic Socialist/social democrat. They work hand in hand. Interesting question, tho. Thesocialistesq 06:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Part of the problem here is that the word 'liberal' means something very different in the United States from what it does in most other countries. Like Canada, for example. (It can actually get hard to tease democratic socialism apart from the leftward edge of social democracy, as I've found during my own edits on democratic socialism.) But in the US, liberal is used to mean essentially what Left means everywhere else. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 22:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán

My friend was playing a game of "find out what's wrong with this article" with people over the 'net. I showed him the Sandbox. WhisperToMe 01:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent... All's well, then. Thesocialistesq 01:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind/Magical Realism

Responding to your point on my talk page, I can see what you're saying, but I would say that any fantasy or sci-fi story presents happenings in the plot that are magic or fantastic, but, like "Eternal Sunshine," these stories are framed in such a way to justify or explain the plausibility of these events. What makes magical realism, arguably, a separate form is that it does not aim to explain the plausibility of its fantastic or magical elements, but simply presents our commonplace world with these elements as being real. So while it may be argued whether the resulting happenings in "Eternal Sunshine" are or are not magical (I would say there's nothing magical, as these events are happening inside a character's mind), its because the events are given plausibility due to the use a technology that makes it more sci-fi, and that that technology's use and its consequences are further explored in the film furthers this. Though sci-fi is noted in the article, it is noted as to make the distinction between genres that people often confuse, not to note is as being a part of, or related to magical realism.Gheorghe Zamfir 23:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Meh. It's all right.Thesocialistesq 01:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFM

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/French Turn is all yours. If you need help, leave me a note or send me an email. Your first task should be to notify the parties that the case has been accepted and you have been assigned. You should also discuss with them (on the subpage listed above) what kind of mediation they want: one on the subpage, via email, on IRC, etc. Good luck! Essjay Talk • Contact 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Rt Hon

Proteus doesn't seem to have been online for a bit as he still hasn't answered my question either! With any abbreviation, one can either use a full stop to show that it's an abbreviation, or not. It's largely down to personal preference – using a full stop is maybe a little old-fashioned nowadays. However, The Rt Hon is short for The Right Honourable, so both "Right" and "Honourable" are abbreviated. Therefore if one's preference is to use full stops, surely it should be Rt. Hon.? Proteus's version seems to be neither one nor the other.

Proteus is a fan of using Google statistics to decide things. Unfortunately, Google ignores full stops in search terms. But a quick glance at the first five result pages show the vast majority of people using Rt Hon with a handful preferring Rt. Hon. No-one writes it as Rt Hon. with only one full stop.

I have to say that I don't think a single full stop merits starting an edit war, though! JRawle 23:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Then we agree... Thesocialistesq 07:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

We use the traditional method of punctuating abbreviations, which is to use full stops only when the abbreviation doesn't end in the same letter as the full term. "Rt" is a contraction rather than an abbrevation of "Right", whereas "Hon." is just "Honourable" with the end missed off. So "The Rt Hon." and "The Rt Rev." but "The Rt Revd". Proteus (Talk) 10:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds a fair enough explanation. The Manual of Style doesn't go into much detail about abbreviations, although it does seem to advocate periods in some cases. I still think it's up to the individual editor.
If there's only a full stop "when the abbreviation doesn't end in the same letter", that means "Mr" and "Dr" shouldn't include it? I agree as I think it looks very odd written with a full stop, but the Manual of Style seems to say it should. JRawle (Talk) 11:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "Mr" and "Dr" are correct traditional British usage, along with "Mrs" and "Miss". Using a full stop after everything is current American practice, which is why the MoS uses it, I'd imagine. Proteus (Talk) 11:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
That would seem to make sense... but i can't find any privy councillor anywhere who styles him or herself "Rt Hon." Meh.Thesocialistesq 01:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I puzzled over this one! When you recently deleted the full stop in the "Rt Hon." for Stanley Baldwin I was slighlty cross and irritated, so I went to look in my copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage. Here I found (to my surprise!!!) that Proteus is probably correct in his explanation of 10:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC) of when and where not to use the full stop in the abbreviation of words, but Fowler's notes the American use of a period in all occasions and a more modern trend for no full stops at all. You comment that you '... can't find any privy councillor anywhere who styles him or herself "Rt Hon." '. I suspect that at the time of Stanley Baldwin, he most certainly would have styled himself the "Rt Hon." (with the full stop). However, I have resisted the temptation to alter the style you adopted. Being a very old fashioned middle-class Englishman, who likes to be correct in english grammar and spelling, I realise that what was probably correct for Baldwin might not be correct for the 21st century. It also highlights the difficulty of being correct both sides of the Adlantic. --DonBarton 17:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice welcome: French Turn & Max Shachtman

Hi there, after a week or two of silence, a little revert war has broken out on French Turn & Max Shachtman, with Jacross re-inserting the unsupported and disputed material. I have asked him to stp, and to say if there is some form of dispute resolution that he would favour. I am keen to avoid this going to arbitration, but I honestly don't think that everyone 'gets' consensus and Talk as ,mentalities, and some discussion could still lessen these conflicts. Do you have any suggestions? If we do have to go for Arbitration, do you have any special considerations that we should think over? --Duncan 19:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I have now referred User:Jacrosse to the Arbitration Committee for their consideration. Let me know if you would like to be a party. You can find the arbitration request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jacrosse. If you wish to, please append to the "Statement by DuncanBCS" heading. We must keep our response to 500 words or less, or it may be removed without warning by the Committee clerks.--Duncan 09:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! --Duncan 10:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Committee

I'm sorry to have to inform you that your request to join the Mediation Committee was not successful. I encourage you to continue in your efforts to help with dispute resolution on Wikipedia, and to consider running again in the future if you remain interested. If you would like to be considered as a reserve mediator (for those times when we find ourselves shorthanded and are in need of willing and competent volunteers) please let me know. Again, thank you for your interest in the committee, and good luck with your work on Wikipedia. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse

This case has been closed. The final decision is in the case page at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CS Lewis

Hey, just letting you know that I changed the CS Lewis page back to describing him as an "Irish author". Given that he was born and raised in Ireland to Irish parents, it is the most fitting categorisation (and it is how he described himself). The politics of Northern Ireland being as they are, biographic articles about people from NI seem to use the nationality that the individual did (or does). There is a looooooong discussion on the talk page about it if you ever can't get to sleep.... :)

Just thought I'd give you a heads up, and explain my reasoning to you. All the best, Martin 22:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cymraeg

Ble rwyt ti'n dysgu dy Gymraeg di, 'te? Not too many American High School students who have much of a grasp on yr iaith, wot. The Jade Knight 06:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Union Jack v. Union Flag

Thanks for your note the other day and for your comments. You made some valid points.

From all of the paragraphs of discussion below my section, it seemed obvious to me that we were talking about:

1. Changing Union Flag to Union Jack. 2. Ensuring a link from Jack to Flag.

There seemed to be a fairly even number of people whose comments and agreements/disagreements were all jumbled up, and so need sorting through.

I shall atempt to count through and add them up, then present a summary at the top of my votng section, and then extend the voting to next Saturday night - and see what happens.

It would be helpful if, after a hour or so, you could go back to the Union Jack Talk page and record your vote, unless of course, you have already done so in the comments below. (I'll check).

Vivaverdi 21:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baronetcy project

Please visit my user page - Baronetcy project 10:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done, B of England is done. Please would you take on Rayment (Anstruther) when time allows? Laura1822 is doing Abdy. - Kittybrewster 12:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology

Since you are interested in flags and emblems I would like to inform you that the WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology has just been created. Why not take a look? I hope you can join. Inge 21:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qpawn

Just a fyi, I have nominated Qpawn for deletion here. Thought you may like to know as you've edited it a bit (and you're the only person that's written on its talk page).

[edit] Qpawn deletion

Thanks for contacting me about this. I've looked back at the AfD but I think the delete decision was the right one. The link you posted in your message goes on to say: "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." This article was original research, and despite requests throughout the period of the AfD no supporting references were provided.

Since the AfD it has been copied to User:Jemiller226/Qpawn - I assume that they are intending to attempt to rewrite to conform to policy. If that happens there is no reason it can't be recreated in mainspace. You can, of course, request a deletion review if you still feel the decision was wrong. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rt Hon(.)

Hi, frankly this point isn't of great interest to me. As long as all articles style the title in the same way it doesn't bother be too much. Having said that, I do agree with Proteus above about the distinction between genuine abbreviations and simple shortening of words. But I have no intention of getting into an edit war over the matter or of debating it forever- life is too short. If there is to be a change, I would much prefer the style Rt Hon to Rt. Hon. , however. So if the matter is truly important to you feel free to change all such entries. The list at Cabinet of the United Kingdom is prob a good start. Best wishes, WJBscribe (WJB talk) 13:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I take back a lot of the above. Having looked through the Cabinet articles I see that many Infoboxes do use the style Rt Hon- even more amusingly most of them were written by me. On reflection (and to look a little less silly), I'm going to support Rt Hon as the appropriate form for all. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 13:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[1] - Kittybrewster 22:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bush criticism article

I understand you're working on cleaning up this article. Just thought I'd suggest the inclusion of a link to "Mission Accomplished" in it. And if you need any other help with the article, I'd be willing to lend a hand.A gx7 07:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Men in Skirts article

Link: Men in Skirts

I didn't think it was that bad for a first draft, and it requires development. Would appreciate explanation or discussion of your reasons for stating "desperately requires cleanup" Bards 12:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Government House (British Columbia)

I've reverted the change you done to this article. By The Style of Address of Canada that Lieutenant Governor is styled His/Her Honour the Honourable while in office and The Honourable for life. [2]

This is the only correct way of address to the Lieutenant Governor and it's not 'odd' in anyway as this is a British tradition. --Cahk 00:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor review archived

Thanks for having requested an editor review. A month has passed since it has been posted there, and it has been archived. You can find it at Wikipedia:Editor review/Thesocialistesq, where you may read last minute additions. We would really appreciate your help in reviewing a random editor. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End to the "bad faith" issue

Please see here where Kitty states that he forced the AfD therefore it was not a bad faith nomination. Can you please now strike through that statement.Vintagekits 13:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Rt(.) Hon(.)

I don't remember any such discussions. Could you point them out to me, please? To be honest, I suspect I'd remember them, so it's entirely possible I didn't take part in them. Proteus (Talk) 16:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winston Churchill

Hi, thanks for your clarification to the introduction. I think that PM should be mentioned in the first paragraph, I just feel that the current first paragraph sounds odd, which is why I reverted it to an earlier state. The "was a British politician, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, statesman, soldier in the British Army, orator, and strategist" does not seem right, given that Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the highest and most important of all those attributes/positions. Perhaps it would be best to have it in a separate sentance? Before the other attributes? Also what did you mean by "See if you don't like it better"?. LordHarris 21:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I was just reading it wrong. That new one sounds good, with a little tweak how about "was a British politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955. A noted statesman, orator and strategist Churchill was also a soldier in the British Army"? Does that seem ok or is it better as it is? LordHarris 21:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The intro reads well! Thanks.
The Original Barnstar
For your work on the introduction of Winston Churchill LordHarris 21:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:IeuanWynJones.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:IeuanWynJones.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Dark Falls talk 08:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nom

The article looks good so far, but does need sourcing for the last few sections before nominating. Also, the inline citations need to go directly after the punctuation with no spaces in between. Remove the wikilinks for the individual years, only full dates should be linked. Besides that, once you add the inline citations, have another editor look it over for copyediting and nominate it for GA. --Nehrams2020 21:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creator Wars

Truthfully, you've got a point about the article. It is almost harmful to leave it up and have it working its way into the search engines. On the one hand, there's not a criterion of speedy deletion for that kind of article, so AfD is the best route for it right now. On the other, you're right: an administrator could very easily speedy it using WP:IAR to justify it - or even close it early under that and/or WP:SNOW. I wouldn't oppose any administrator who did that; I'm just not yet ready to do it myself. —C.Fred (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nochistlan de Mejia

Hi! I noticed that you slapped a speedy deletion on this article. There would have been a lot more content if you had waited for me to finish entering the content, but your quick insert conflicted with my work. Could you please remove the label? --Hugo Estrada 01:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks! --Hugo Estrada 01:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD on Presutti

Thanks for your participation in the Jake Presutti discussion. I was hoping you could clarify a little more on your vote. Although Presutti is the actual page of the deletion discussion, there is actually the entire Syracuse Orange basketball team at play as well, including those who have represented Team USA and Team Canada in international basketall competitions. In my opinion, these players don't fall under the category of "un-special athletes" even though walk-ons like Presutti, may. In other words, would you mind clarifying on the page whether you were you voting to just delete Presutti, or the entire Syracuse basketball team? Chengwes 20:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. Although the Syracuse Orange basketball page is not up for deletion, specific players on the team, other than Presutti, are nominated, including players like Andy Rautins or Johnny Flynn. I was wondering when you said "delete" whether you were referring to just Presutti, or the entire team. Thanks for clarifying. Chengwes 20:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your support at my recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 16:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Bush criticism

I have replied. Timneu22 23:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh

Hey, thanks for your message, and apologies for my delay in responding, I've been abroad with no WP access (argh...!) - anyway, I've re-reviewed the article and I've promoted it to WP:GA so well done to you and all the other editors involved. All the best, The Rambling Man 15:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Hopefully your first GA of many to come... Well done. The Rambling Man 07:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use of images of Welsh politicians

I have undone the removal of the tags I added to the other two images and added one to Image:Ieuan wyn jones.jpg (please read the following and the edit summary to understand why). As I am assuming you are not being intentionally disruptive, I would suggest you need to read Wikipedia:Fair use criteria and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline over before removing such tags


Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ieuan wyn jones.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page.

I also noticed the that its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.<

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 08:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wittgenstein/Hitler Realschule Photograph

Your alteration places doubts concerning the veracity of the previous caption that are quite unjustified. The photograph having been forensically examined and reported upon, it is more certain that Wittgenstein is the photograph than that Hitler is. So far as I am aware, you are not in possession of any evidence to the contrary, nor have any expertise in matters photographic. Given that the photograph was drawn to academic attention a decade ago following police examination and has so far survived criticism, it is surprising to find a high school student taking upon himself the responsibility for raising doubts in the matter without either discussion or reference to any literature justifying the alteration. I rather doubt that you have even contacted the Linz Bundesrealgymnasium (the Realschule) to check. I therefore ask you to either provide reasons on the Wittgenstein discussion page justifying the alteration or else revert the edit. Failing that, I will take the edit to be vandalism and revert the edit myself in a week. Usual Wikipedia practice is to discuss intended changes before making them and I rather wish you would adhere to this policy, as I do.Kimberley Cornish 00:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You commented on my user page that "I made the change based on evidence I had gathered on the Wittgenstein and Jew of Linz talk pages and articles suggesting that it was by no means certain that the other boy is Wittgenstein." The problem is that none of the people raising doubts appear to have done any research or quoted any academic authority to support their dissenting opinions. The only reputable doubter mentioned in the Wikipedia article discussion is the German historian Michael Rissmann, and when Rissmann's original German is read, it is clear that he doesn't deny it at all; all that can be read into what he says is that he is unconvinced. In short, apart from academically unknown Wikipedia editors, my work on the photograph has stood for ten years. That is, when you quote the twit who wrote "while the authenticity of the picture and the identification of young Hitler is undisputed, the identification of the other boy with Wittgenstein has been challenged" it is just not true. There is not, to my knowledge any article or review (and it has been reviewed many times) in any reputable publication anywhere in the world that HAS challenged the photographic identification. Should there really be evidence that the Victoria Police examination was faulty in any way or overlooked something, then by all means present it in the discussion pages and leave your edit as it is. On the other hand, if you made it only because you felt that an anonymous and unsupported claim that my identification "has been challenged" was true, I think you should change it back to what it was. So, pleasse either find something academically respectable that you can refer to disputing my identification - and supporting the claim that "it has been challenged" - or else revert the edit. I understand you made the change probably feeling that you were being even-handed, but it only encourages idiots. No doubt one could write that the sphericity of the Earth "has been challenged" - as it has been by flat-earthers - but not only does their "challenge" not matter; it does positive harm to give such people any credence. Reasons please, not a false even-handedness Kimberley Cornish 12:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)\
In my last, I said that it is just not true that my photographic identification has been challenged by any reputable academic anywhere in the world. You reply that other of my theses have been disputed and that therefore it is O.K. to say that the Victoria Police photographic identification has been challenged when in fact this is untrue. By all means change it to read "Thesocialistesq challenges the identification", but please don't go beyond this and lend yourself to the propagation of falsities.
You wrie "Michael Rissmann did indeed criticize the use of the photo directly". Would you mind quoting exactly which published words of Rissmann you have in mind to support this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.184.126 (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOP

I've responded at WT:NOP. Navou banter 22:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names in infoboxes

I saw your edit on Harold Macmillan‎. As this is an issue that doesn't seem to have a clear solution, I've raised the point at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder#Name to use in name field to see if there's any clarity on this matter. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw it too. The article is entitled what they are commonly known as. The law of this country (UK) is reflected in the infoboxes, where peers of the realm are known by their highest titles. Also, in many cases you said they weren't known by these titles when, in fact, they were/are. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] delivered

You've definitely earned yours, you good little boy.--Santa (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings Thesocialistesq

Esteemed Mr. Thesocialistesq, I write to ask for your advice about a group of talented youths who are very interested in left-politics and have created an international left-politics club of sorts. As far as I know they have been respectful and disciplined. Nonetheless, a Dutch wikipedian has accused them of being “anti-american” for having asked for the translation of certain political parties that are supposedly “subversive” (which seems to go against, on many levels, the spirit of wikipedia). While I am more of a Marxist than they are, they surely have very good points and present objective information on wikipedia. They have been interested in many subjects. Among these subjects, they have taken an interest in requesting various different language-wikipedias to provide content about political parties they are interested in. A user in the Dutch wikipedia who might be somewhat of a zealot claims that it’s vandalism to request a page and insists on delting the page they got various Dutch wikipedians to create. Now she is claiming that they are “vandals” and insists on blocking their user pages and deleting deleting any page they requested. Could you please take a view at her claims here and give me advice as to how they may respectfully request a revision of that editor’s unilateral actions (which were responded to here, albeit he/she has not responded)? They have asked for my advice but I just don’t know enough about policies here to give them a definitive answer. That said, something about how this Dutch editor has proceeded has the smell of not being equitable and fair. In solidarity and best wishes for 2008, Miraclebaby (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Current Events Barnstar

The Current Events Barnstar
For your work with articles related to the 2006-2008 Cuban transfer of presidential duties, I award you this barnstar. Thank you, and salute! JeffBillman (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)