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

There was a list for people who nominated FAC's and passed, I figured a list list this is already created. Unless I missed a few (which I might have, since I noticed many talk pages still has {{ FLC}} instead of {{ FL}}). These are being created since a new admin said that edit counts should not longer be used to determine ones' worth on here. Frankly, I agree. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply

At Portal:Cricket you reverted my simplification of the categories section saying it was better for mirrors. Is it policy to make pages look good for mirrors? I've put a question on the help desk. Thanks, for the edit summary, it was very helpful. -- Commander Keane 10:15, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

• I've started a discussion at the portal talk. -- Commander Keane 13:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Proposed modifications to rules you alleged that Condorcet voting systems are biased in favor of those who advocate them. Election fraud is a serious matter, and the claim that someone advocates voting-systems under false claims of fairness is a serious allegation.

Please provide (on that page; not here or in my talk page) any historical examples of elections where this has happened. You claimed that this "abounds everywhere", so surely there are many examples easily accessible to you. These examples might be in the "real world", or drawn from online groups which use Condorcet methods (I think Debian does, for one). Please provide whatever examples you had in mind. If, however, you do not have any such examples that you can provide, I fear that your claim will be regarded as FUD, and I encourage you to withdraw it. Thank you. -- FOo 18:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply

firstly, please note that WP is full of volunteers, orders are always unlikely to gain a good response. Look at where it's been used in real-life! You won't find one honest example. It's like a three card trick. Also, the only reason for having a voting system hardly anyone understands is so that it can be worked by those few who do understand it to their advantage, jguk 18:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks. As for the govs, lets see. That list is incomplete. The first governor Gerard Aungier (I think) is not mentioned on that site. As for you, if your in the 5th Ashes test ground, how do I look out for you? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:42, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Pavilion... so I'd have to wait for someone like Flintoff (who incidently shares my birthday) to hit a six straight down the ground to guess who you are. I'll keep in mind someone your age (hidden in comments: ) . Its covered on ESPN here, and the news channels do give a daily update. Newspapers go beserk though, one page is simply not enough. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've proposed a minor change to the RFC system and was informed you may have some experience with trying to fix it as well. perhaps you could take a quick look and see if I'm reinventing someone else's wheel. Wikipedia:RFC reform. FuelWagon 03:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Dear user Jguk, as I have seen a edition of yours at the article Rosicrucian, I come to request your support to this article that I have just purposed for nomination at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Rosicrucian. May you may give a look into it? And, if you consider it acceptable, then may you support it? Thank you! :) -- GalaazV 02:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply

What's wrong with the Portal template on the cricket page to direct people to the Cricket portal? Takes up less room than the bolded message, looks better, and is a common wikipedia feature. In case you have forgotten, you say "Please leave this here, it's much better than that silly jigsaw thing on the right hand side of other portal pages"-- Commander Keane 17:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with this one: it is much better to have standard templates for this sort of thing, even if is is a "silly jigsaw thing". -- ALoan (Talk) 18:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Of course, the bold thing to do would be to get rid of the silly jigsaw thing... [[smoddy]] 18:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply

I have gotten rid of it from the cricket-related pages, jguk 18:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply

I think smoddy meant that if you have a problem with the jigsaw thing, see if you can improve the template.-- Commander Keane 09:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was exactly what I meant. It doesn't make much sense as it is. But I am out of ideas to fix it. [[smoddy]] 10:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Congrats on regaining the Ashes. I heard your voice on TV. (joking) Also wish you a happy 1 year anniv. on WP. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

YAY! Go England! Hope you had some happy moments in all the rain! :D Sam Vimes 19:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Well done! (he says while gritting teeth :) - I imagine Petersen will be knighted. I'm looking forward to getting some sleep. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi Brookie here - I've added a couple of pictures to the article. :) The curate's egg 10:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC) reply

This image lacks source information, could you provide it? -- Gmaxwell 11:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi, I've left this message on the Project talk page to follow up on something about which we exchanged messages (this was a couple of months ago!). I've listed some ideas on how to make some of the articles that serve to explain cricket a bit clearer, and although I'm sure you check the talk page regularly, I thought I'd flag it up on your own page. I hope it's useful - let me know if otherwise and I'll just stick to updating the cricketer infoboxes! -- High ^(Hopes) (+) 13:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Could you put some licensing information on this, please? I get the impression that images without such are likely to be deleted rather more aggressively in the future, and we don't want to lose this one. Loganberry ( Talk) 00:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your reply about this; as per your comment I'll add the GFDL tag if I see any other non-marked pics by you. Loganberry ( Talk) 11:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Jon, just a brief message - I recently set up Portal:Politics and Wikipedia:Wikiproject Politics, and was wondering if you objected to my use of some of the formatting on the corresponding cricket pages. While I may well set up everything anew in the future and the colours would be different, I would be very grateful if I can use some of the 'code' from the cricket pages to help me get things started - I haven't the foggiest on how to use the code that generates tables and borders etc. Plus, imitation is the greatest form... But let me know if you'd rather I didn't borrow. Thanks, -- HighHopes ^{(T)⋅ (+)⋅ (C)⋅ (E)} 14:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article A. R. R. A. P. W. R. R. K. B. Amunugama, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Can you please tell me if you can read "Μέγας Αλέξανδρος" or Μέγας Αλέξανδρος? (the "first" and Μέγας Αλέξανδρος looks better in my browser, but I guess that's another story) +MATIA ☎ 11:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your answer! Should we replace the text that has ε with one of those texts (perhaps one that uses a template)? +MATIA ☎ 12:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't understand the phrase "you could plump for one" - my english aren't that good. I'm guessing you meant I could insert one of those versions and see how it goes, right? +MATIA ☎ 12:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

It already had the polytonic template so I kept it :) Thanks for your help. +MATIA ☎ 12:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I thought I should write it in polytonic since it had that template. You can't see Ἀ nor Ἀ, right? (a plain Alpha Α is ok I guess). +MATIA ☎ 12:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I see that you are continuing to change articles that are quite happily sitting with BC notation to BCE, somewhat against WP policy - as is your approach to using invective rather than explaining your position. Only BC notation has worldwide recognition amongst our target audience, and good writing requires an author to use terms his reader will understand and be familiar with (as opposed to requiring the reader to put up with the writer's peccadilloes). I don't understand why you are so in favour of trying to make our articles more inaccessible - but then, of course, I can't, as you have consummately failed to discuss your position.

So far the majority of your edits to WP have been purely destructive, and those which have helped WP have been somewhat minor in nature. If this is all you can contribute, please consider whether your energies would be better served elsewhere - life is short and you are more trouble here than you are worth at present. Kind regards, jguk 18:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Are you going to comment on your actions - which only serve to make WP less accessible to its reader base, or just blindly revert in the hope that in time anyone who reads WP will go away? jguk 18:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

When are you going to do something other than revert to insert your POV, which is contrary to WP policy? It's not the done thing to revert blindly, but it's difficult to see a resolution to this when you are unwilling to discuss your behaviour, which to date has been entirely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs good editors, it does not need editors who only disrupt it, which is what you have done so far, jguk 15:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I have not changed any date styles. It is you who have engaged in a mass campaign to enforce your POV on other editors, and have disrupted Wikipedia for over a year. All your edits outside of trivial cricket articles seem to be to further some particluar stylistic preference you hold, whether it is BCE/CE, styles for royalty, British/American spelling, spelling of U.S., etc. Why don't you find something more productive to do? Sortan 15:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I like the little history topics template you've added to various pages. Very imaginative and useful too. Well done. -- Jack 17:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Partaining to the Microsoft Jet Engine Article, is it the database part that's confusing? I.E. should I spell out what a database is, what a relational database is, etc.? Or is it something else? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

It's been a couple of days. What do you think? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Yes, you're quite right about the POV thing on here and some people would do their nuts.

I've reworded two or three of the pieces as well because they talk about "the award". I've changed the emphasis to indicate that it is simply a focus on one player per season, which is much better. The idea is to have a different player every time (as per Wisden). I thought it would add something to the season summary if we can focus on a specific individual because the trouble with early cricket is that it is a personality-free zone: finding a player's name is like a needle in a haystack! Besides I was a bit uneasy about having the patrons as "player of the year" because, although they all played, were they the best or simply the richest? Having them in a focus, it doesn't matter how well they played; you could easily put someone like Neville Cardus in a focus if none of the players were good enough that year.

Tim Coleman is a case in point. I have so far found only one single reference to him and yet he was a "famous" player and he played for the most successful club of the time. As for who his team mates were......!?

All the best. -- Jack 06:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi jguk,

Re /Archive8#Mike_Procter_photo: I've now added a {{No source}} tag to all four portraits from International cricket in South Africa (1971 to 1981). This means they're in danger of being deleted unless you can add source and copyright information.

Thanks,

Stephen Turner 19:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I agree my edit summary may have been confusing - I was addressing the first part of it to you, and the second part to Humus Sapiens et al. I tend to agree that it's a bit silly to continue to use a calendar whose entire basis is in the Christian religion yet to object to using its well-known and traditional terminology because it's "Christian-centric" (!!!). However, given that lots of people do seem to feel strongly about it, and that using AD can be seen to imply recognition of the divinity of Christ, I think it's as well that we have a form of compromise worked out on the style guide pages which will allow us to get on with other things rather than fighting over this. That was my rationale for reverting to the BCE/CE version. Hope that makes my position clear. Palmiro | Talk 08:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I have answered your questions here. I hope I have answered them adequately. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks, jguk 21:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Holy cow, I'm 23 and I feel old after reading the arbcom election answers so far, LOL! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

(cross posted to talk page) Jguk, you asked every candidate Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.) I fail to see how this is pertinent to the ArbCom elections. The candidate's age shouldn't matter; indeed, this is a personal detail some may feel hesistant in disclosing. Knowing someone's age should not be a factor; it doesn't matter if the candidate is two, twelve, twenty-two, or (heaven forbid) two-hundred and twenty-two. If you're concerned about the maturity of the users, people should be able to evaluate that regardless of the age. Someone at fourteen or fifteen (which we have several candidates) can be just as mature as someone fourty or fifty, if not more. It shouldn't matter. You shouldn't judge a book by its cover, and you shouldn't judge someone by his/her age, especially if someone is unwilling to disclose that piece of personal information. Also, you ask students to state what subjects they are taking. Again, it shouldn't matter. I really don't care if someone is taking underwater basket weaving 101, advanced literature, nuclear physics, or is working towards a Ph.D. in the arts; you don't need any qualifications to sit on the ArbCom, and I frankly don't see how the classes someone is taking should be included. If you're worried that a candidate might not have enough time, why not ask them so directly? Do you feel that you will have enough time throughout your term to accomplish the tasks of ArbCom? Jguk, I ask that you reconsider your first question. Of course, I respect your opinion, and I don't mind if candidates want to reply to that question, but I also ask that if someone does not wish to answer that question, that it not be held against him/her. Thanks very much for listening to me, and as always, I value your opinion. Thanks very much for your understanding! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W _S 23:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

P.S. I apologize in advance if I am being blunt or if the above post sounded tactless (it wasn't meant to be, and I hope it isn't), but I just feel strongly about this matter. As always, I respect everyone else's opinion, and yours is valued. :-) Happy editing! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W _S 23:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

It's only a background question, no candidates are forced to answer any questions if they don't want to, and no-one is required to base their votes on the answers. There's a questions and comments section, I see no problem in asking questions that I feel will tell me more about the various candidacies, jguk 23:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi Jguk, I left a question for you a few days ago on Talk:Kingdom of Judah, but you may not have seen it. I'm repeating it here because I think it goes to the heart of the issue. The arbcom ruled that BC shouldn't be changed to BCE and vice versa "unless there is some substantial reason for the change." That is, they ruled that the first-contributor or first-major-contributor rule does not apply where "there is some substantial reason for the change." So my question to you is: what kind of circumstance do you see as counting as a "substantial reason for the change"? That is, what change of BC to BCE would you regard as being consistent with the arbcom ruling? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This is a difficult one - if there were a clear example then no doubt the ArbCom would have given one, despite there being many Arbitrators who could have proposed ideas. No doubt they were mindful that no suggestion made by the community to date had come close to reaching consensus. I'm also mindful that a proposal to leave date notation questions to the talk pages of individual articles also failed to gain community consensus, largely as there was no appetite to repeat the same arguments over a large number of articles. I think a "substantial reason for the change" would be if it was consistent with a proposal discussed community-wide that gained consensus. However, I don't see any proposal gaining this consensus at present. Another reason would be if it were a change that was so obvious that no-one would rationally oppose it - again I can't think of a real-life example here, jguk 08:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your reply. By "substantial reason for the change," the arbcom can't have meant "something consistent with a proposal discussed community-wide that gained consensus," because there was and is no such proposal, so they must have meant something else — because they clearly saw their ruling as coming into force when the case closed, and not at some distant date in the future when consensus was reached (in which case their ruling would anyway be redundant). As you know, the MoS isn't policy and any editor is free to ignore it, so the closest thing we have to a policy regarding BCE is the arbcom ruling, and that's what we have to adhere to, like it or not. It seems to me that they left "substantial reason" deliberately undefined, leaving it to editors on the page to decide whether a "substantial reason" exists. If an article being about Jewish or Persian history doesn't constitute such a reason, I can't see what would. By the way, where was the proposal to leave date notation to article pages that failed to gain consensus? I wasn't involved in the dispute, so I don't know everything that was discussed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply

If the ArbCom had meant to imply that articles on Jewish or Persian history should say BCE, I'm sure they would have done - so I don't believe you can be right there - especially as they would have been aware that there was no community consensus about that point and wouldn't have wished to get involved in a content dispute. Absent the "substantial reason" rider, I suppose they could have been accused of deciding policy, the rider makes it clear that there could be a way of changing what styles were used, but they can't think of what it may be, jguk 08:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the links by the way to the discussion about the compromise proposal, and the one about religoustolerance.org, which I see is run by a retired engineer, a nurse, and an unemployed waitress. Possibly not one of our best sources. The entire last section of Historical persecution by Christians relied on it until a few days, including a paragraph about how pagans are economically persecuted in Canada. File:Meh.gif Anyway, I've deleted anything for which it was the sole source, so thanks for the heads up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply

JG, I reverted you (twice) on Jerusalem because my understanding of the policy was the same as yours: that since both styles are acceptable, one shouldn't be arbitrarily changed to the other. A cursory look at the page history had satisfied me that the BCE version was there first (I checked back as far as the edit before Ramallite's). Since this appears also to be your understanding of the rules, would you consider a ceasefire on this page to spare everybody a needless waste of time?

I agree with you that BCE/CE is unusual in British English and not necessarily understood by everyone, particularly outside an academic context. However, all the dates are linked and the link for e.g. 19BCE redirects to 19BC, which should make it plain to a hypothetical puzzled user what it is. If you think this is insufficient, then in line with your views as to what the policy is, do you think you could simply get around that by putting the other version in brackets after the first use on the page? (of course, this is not provided for in the MoS and may not be acceptable to anybody, it's just a random idea that came into my head and should probably have stayed there) Palmiro | Talk 12:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I listed the David Mertz article for deletion once again, just wanted to see if you still had an issue with it or wanted to vote. -- ScottyBoy900Q 16:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi jguk, I have answered the questions you asked me re: the Arbitration Committee elections. Thanks for your questions, Talrias ( t | e | c) 07:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi, for some reason, I seem to have been spared your questioning. Was this an oversight? Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I have now tried to answer. If you would like further clarification, just ask. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Yes, I would be interested in joining Project Cricket. How do you sign up? (And oh yes, screw England for winning the Ashes, as an Australian fan). Rickster89

You are repeatedly reverting the dates on Jerusalem. Please note that if you violate the three revert rule policy you can be blocked immediately with no further warnings. But even more importantly, you are violating the intent of Wikipedia. There has not been a discussion about the dates on the article talk page. It is clear from the edit history that more users support the other version, not yours. It is not right for you to continually revert the article when a consensus has not been reached on the talk page, especially since you appear to be in the minority. If you want this change, you should propose it on the talk page and then make it only if your proposal achieves consensus. Otherwise you are being disruptive and other users are within reason to bring dispute resolution procedures against you. This can result in your editing privileges being restricted or revoked.

Please do not make this change again until you have obtained consensus on the article talk page. Jdavidb (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply