Hi, JTD. Did you see my last comment on Wikipedia Talk:History standards? (Or have you been too busy trying to figure out what makes a certain person tick? Or maybe where he acquired such a brilliant dog?) Deb 22:58 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Stop being such an ass DW. The only examining that is needed is on your head. Why are you such a prick? --mav

DW you have been banned. Go play somewhere else now. --mav

On a lighter note, thanks for the kind words re. The Today programme --rbrwr

Look at the old Irish public house page it was AWFUL!. It had to go.

Glad to see you sorted out the great Prince William of Wales debate (again). I have no problem with what you've written in the royal titles or-whatever-it-is page. It all looks pretty sensible to me. (As usual, I reserve the right to change my mind in months to come.)

Hasn't everything gone quiet lately? I hate to say it, but I kind of miss DW! Deb 22:03 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Hi JTD,

Your last edit to the Dreyfus affair seemed to cut the article short (perhaps because your browser doesn't edit long pages properly?). You might want to be careful about that, and possibly even upgrade to mozilla :).

Pde 06:57 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

Hello, have you gone into hibernation? I've just given Arthur Tudor back his surname. It's difficult to trace the history of the article as it stands, and I recognise that the new title is in keeping with the standards we agreed. However, I don't think it can be denied that he had a surname, and that it was Tudor - that was, of course, his father's surname before he came to the throne, so I think it's only fair to mention it. I also altered the bit about "old England", because I think Henry saw himself, and King Arthur, as Welsh or at any rate Celtic. ("British" would have been okay, I suppose.) But I'm not sure where that phrase came from in the first place - possibly not from a good Celt like you. Deb 21:31 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

---

Just posted this at Thr*monsterC*:

JTD you are a maroon writing comments like you do here, when your understanding of Wikipedian Ethos is so limited.... there are tons of your meally mouthed posts that show your ignorance and stupidity. I know that you have the capacity to write excellent articles; however, you do not show the subtlty of mind nessessary to do justice to complex topics. My statement is fully supported in the histories of the wikipedia. Let's take a look with the community if you dare come into the light. SLAP! with white glove. User:Two16

You know my view on comments like the above - non-response tends to be most effective. Did you know that, in Welsh, "moron" means "carrot"? Deb 13:35 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

JTD is immune to reason: thats why the big stick. To a greater or lesser degree JTD is a simpleton. I will back this up with highly embarrassing examples of his ignorant, petulant post which are a general discredit to his alma mater. JTD please comment on my talk page if you have any sense whatsoever. Two16

Sorry, previews are not saved anywhere. If you're making a very long edit, I highly recommend copying the text to a text editor and saving it to disk frequently. It'll probably be more comfortable than trying to edit in a tiny browser window, too... --Brion 18:14 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

It showed up accurately in the preview but when I went back up to look at the version before saving, it was garbled, with some grey boxes cropping up in the middle of the text, the final paragraph mixed up and the first paragraph gone completely.

The broken save sounds like a simple cutoff during transmit (or would, except that the beginning the text is missing too) but the above sounds like a browser problem... if you got the whole preview, the edit box would have had to come through to you intact first; so if it got messed up it has to have happened in your browser. Unfortunately if that's the case there's not really anything we can do about it. :( --Brion 21:21 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Every once in a while I read something really startling (and in this case, amusing) here. Thanks for the alert on Princess Margaret squeezing the Sharmin. I just hope it survives censorship for a bit! (As you know, some would prefer to believe public people have no sex lives, or that if they have them, they should not be discussed) <G>. -- Someone else 23:42 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

I'm impressed by your Treaty of Nice additions. I like it when I just add some trivial detail to an article, thus putting it onto the Recent Changes page, and thus bringing it to the attention of someone who actually knows something about the subject, who then does something useful with it! :) -- Oliver P. 01:38 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

Hang on, Joseph Duffy isn't a relative of yours, is he...? :) -- Oliver P. 02:34 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

Nope. But I know Joe because I have dealt with him. Strange strange man! He once answered the phone, put on a funny voice and pretended he wasn't himself but a member of the staff, and how the 'Bishop isn't available to come to the phone'. He may be a good bishop but he is a woeful actor! I wound him up the next time I met him by giving him a curious look and asking him whether he had bought a new telephone answering machine yet! He went scarlet. Fr. Martin Clarke is a much better Bishops spokesman. But equally as much fun to wind up. JTD 02:45 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

Heh heh! Oh, if only it were possible to write that in a NPOV way and put it in the article. ;) -- Oliver P. 02:51 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

Re: Manuel II of Portugal - You didn't make a mistake with the dates. I reverted some subtle vandalism. Mintguy

Ha! I just read your note, JTD, but I already weighed a little earlier. I'll attend to the page itself shortly. Tannin 06:51 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Hey, JTD! I have a question that I've always wondered about, and thought you might be someone who knew the answer. Was the (unwritten) British Constitution usually referred to as such before there was a (written) US Constitution, or was it referred to as such in reaction to the criticism that it had no written constitution?? (Good work on the Constitutional Monarchy article, people with agendas can be exTREEEMly tiresome...) -- Someone else 23:14 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the input on that 'unwritten' question. If you do ever happen across THE definitive answer<G>, it would be good to know, but don't go crazy looking for it. As for me, it makes my head hurt to keep head of state, head of government, etc. straight. The idea of a book on the subject is absolutely bemusing! Perhaps reading it would finally memorialize the difference in my mind<G>... -- Someone else 23:53 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Good work on the Oz = republic silliness, JTD. I missed your article on the Republic Advisory Committee earlier. I'm not sure how you managed to be accused of being a monarchist from that: I'd like to quibble with a few minor details when I get time one day, but it's an excellent entry.

As I half mentioned on the Australia:talk page I do intend to get back to do three things with the Whitlam page one day: (a) balance it up by recasting your narrow view of the dismissal (I was going to write "narrow IMO" just now, but that's not a fair description - I am far from alone in that opinion: the matter remains hotly disputed and Wiklipedia should not take sides on the issue, simply report the debate), (b) reduce the dismissal to its proper place in the context of an article about Gough Whitlam - i.e., a para or two in correct historical sequence, not the defining characteristic of the Whitlam Government, and (c) recast the article such that it takes a balanced, properly historical view of EGW, seperating matters of substantive fact (huge reforms dwarfing those of any other Australian government post-war, bizarre scandals especially during the second term) from matters of public opinion (Whitlam as conservative demon & a Labor icon; the long-held view of conservative and many moderate voters that Whitlam was a disaster as PM).

But not today. ) Tannin 23:46 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your NPOV edit to Palestinian territories. It is often very difficult to find just the right wording, and we need more PhD's to help! --Uncle Ed 17:04 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

Re: FPTP (which I, as an American, call Plurality Voting): I don't care where the article is. I just wanted to make sure we integrated the two articles and didn't spend a lot of time working on seperate versions. DanKeshet 18:20 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Hi JTD, I didn't think you were being sharp, and I wasn't trying to be sharp myself. I try to assume good faith, it makes my stress level a lot lower. re: the capitalization of the names: I have no opinion myself, and don't want to be involved in the decision. I'll go by whatever else anybody else decides. You may want to discuss this at the so-far barely-used Wikipedia:WikiProject Voting Systems. Cheers, DanKeshet 19:01 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

You could well be right about the capitalisation of "first minister" (or "First Minister"). But I'm not sure that it is always a formal title. I'll have to look into the Welsh position, because I thought we were using it unofficially, copying the Scots because we couldn't think of another way of putting it. But if you want to move it, I won't quibble. There are a few rules and sensibilities about capitalisation around here, and I don't know them inside out. Deb 18:28 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

I just checked. Rhodri Morgan is "First Minister" alright. I think "First Secretary" (at least in the UK) would be a more exalted title, just as "Secretary of State" is more important than "Minister" in a government department. I'm at a loss now. I'd have to do a lot more research to be able to add to the article on "First Minister" - whether or not it's capitalised. Deb 23:44 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

==[edit]

Sorry, it just looked that way.

Arno

Shhh, calm down. :) There are loads of silly and pointless redirects around the place that no-one ever uses. They don't take up much space, so I wouldn't worry about them too much if I were you... -- Oliver P. 02:05 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

They do have a point, in fact - people sometimes make links to imperfect titles; redirects such as Pontiff States will catch them. There's also just an outside chance that somebody might have linked to a page like that from some external website, on in a newsgroup posting or email. Removing the redirects will break those links. There's very little to gain by deleting them in any case, as we've been told that disk space isn't an issue. --Camembert

Okay, for "silly and pointless" in my paragraph above, read "slightly funny-looking". :) -- Oliver P. 02:22 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

They're not funny looking, in fact - I'm sure their mums love them, and it isn't going to help their self-confidence to call them names, and... oh, alright, I'll take my pedant's hat off now :) --Camembert

If you look at the "talk" page for "Pontiff States" you will find my explanation of why I put the redirect back. Your belief that there is "zilch chance" that anyone will ever search for "Pontiff States" may be based on a failure to realize that someone whose native language is Italian and who doesn't know the correct term in English may look for that, and furthermore, searches can be done (e.g., on Google) in which one enters words to be matched without intending the whole phrase to match. Michael Hardy 02:13 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I felt bad that we hadnt acted on it sooner, too. I went to do something, and saw Mav comment in the RC, and he thought we ought to take action on it. I didnt notice that someone had tracked down the school, by IP until Mav showed up - I guess I assumed that others would have dealt with it by then. Well, now we have some experience, and some policy: "Wikipedia:Suisides" :) -Stevert

I certainly see no need, and moreover, I doubt you are justified in saying there are no links to this article. You forget that links can be on pages having nothing to do with Wikipedia. Not only are there non-Wikipedia web pages that link to Wikipedia articles, but, as Brion Vibber pointed out to me, some kid's term paper may list the URL for that Wikipedia page in a bibliography. What harm can the page do by sitting there with a redirect, since it is unlikely that anyone will ever see it unless they are in need of learning that that is not the correct term? Michael Hardy 02:55 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

And there is a policy against deleting said redirects if they have been around for a while. Some of these also have edit histories that we cannot delete without violating the GNU FDL (when text developed under that page title was copied by somebody else - even offsite - and they have linked-back to the Wikipedia article per our copyright guidelines). --mav

Hey, Irish history person! Can I interest you in taking a look at the article I started on the Fenian Brotherhood (and incidently the Fenian Ram) and improving them? --the Epopt

I don't think anyone was actually offended -- the issue is really professionalism. I'm a regular contributor and a sysop and sadly, people will dismiss Wikipedia as being a bunch of potheads if they see my name all over recent changes. Interestingly, I bet if DW (or anyone else) had actually complained, I would have steadfastly refused to change just to spite him and left (then secretly returned under a different name) if I was forced to change it. But I was contacted in a non-confrontational manner and ultimately, I agree that the name would unfairly and unjustly impugn the whole project. Tuf-Kat

OK, here's a new subject (or maybe not, but I can't find any ongoing discussion about it). I've been concerned for ages about the fact that we go on creating empty links for the names of individuals who are never likely to have an article written about them - and, in my opinion, shouldn't, as it would contain no more than the briefest of genealogical data. Today I started an article for Elizabeth de Clare. She had two sisters, who might reasonably be considered worthy of articles of their own. She also had three husbands, none of whom is worthy of note. I didn't put in links to the non-existent entries, but I know that someone is probably going to come along and add them. I wonder if it's worth us trying to come up with some kind of policy on this (if there is one, I can't find it) and, if so, which page I should start the discussion on. Any ideas? Deb 23:00 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Please don't change anything regarding football, football players, I'm in the middle of writing up the history of all the sports that share a common root as football. Mintguy

I thought i'd just point out the the football players union in Ireland is the PFAI (Professional Footballers Association of Ireland). Mintguy

What really sticks in my gullet is that none of this would have happened if someone hadn't decided to move list of famous football players to list of Association football players, or I'd chosen a better time to move it back. But also you insisting off the bat that in Ireland football means one thing when you knew full well that wasn't true. Mintguy

JTD, Check out, if you will, my question on Talk:Papal Infallibility. Don't mean to be persnickety, like them football/soccer chaps, but I can't wrap my mind around it being a proper noun. I suspect it may be a matter of "style" rather than correctness. -- Someone else 07:15 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC) If I'd have known I was going to ask, I'd have complimented you on the tiara article first, when it wouldn't look so much like I was sucking up<G>. (BTW, another dogged question: do those tiaras actually separate into three crowns, or are they just one three-level crown?)

Thanks. It's my sick mind, I think: I had a mad vision of being able to mix-and-match papal tiaras (level 1 from tiara A + level 2 from tiara B + level 3 from tiara C). Good use for a devilishly clever gold/silver/tinsmith. Enjoy your well-earned rest then<G> (More on the queen-flossing-in-tiara-and-parure imagery later<G>. )-- Someone else 08:00 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Me butting in again. Your last parenthetical is hilarious if you use flossing in the ebonics definition, which was my first interpretation. (for the Brits, she would be bragging about how wonderfully thuggish and intimidating she was in her tiara and parure imagery, in spite of this being based solely on arrogance and not facts). Tuf-Kat

I'm rather glad that "floss" didn't have a ruder meaning, and I'm sad to say I had only the dental imagery in mind...something about her eating cornflakes, you know. At least she can floss (in both senses) with her ermines on... -- Someone else (wondering whether flossing isn't really the sort of thing one has to do for oneself, anyway)

I never floss without my ermines on. How uncouth... Tuf-Kat

Personally I wouldn't wear one.

And I have no intention of getting involved in the great football debate. The game is rugby (even if my country is heading for the wooden spoon). Deb 22:37 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

I decided to bypass bureocracy (dont tell cunc) and delete it right now. I made it a redirect to eliminate some nonsense, but I didn't think more about it. As it was vandalism, I think there is justification in killing it outright.--AN 20:57 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

I'm a higher power :) If you really want to take on your shoulders some administrative stuff, you should start reading the Wikipedia:Mailing lists, continue to edit articles, and when your edits form a pattern of reliability and good behaviour, you can ask in the list to be made a sysop. --AN 21:42 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

JTD: I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you! at your assertion that Michael Jackson's belief that he has a normal nose is deluded. It is well-established that Michael Jackson has a normal nose, and keeps it in a cigar box in his bedside stand. -- Someone else 02:17 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

LOL! --mav

Well I disambiguated about a third of the links to football. Most intended to go to football (soccer), about a dozen intended to go to American football and a handfull I either couldn't tell or were general enough to leave connected to football. Your turn! ;-) --mav 04:31 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

OK Mav. Will to my duty! (My God. I can't believe. Last week I was editing something on same sex marriage. Then the Blessed Virgin Mary. Then Papal Tiaras. Now sport!!!! (Me touching sport is like George W. Bush picking up a book of old english for relaxation!)

BTW your page is 34K, hence I could not leave the message there. You are one popular dude! JTD 05:00 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

LOL - time for an archive (oh for the days when I only had to archive once a month...). --mav 05:40 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

When do you sleep?

Your question here responded to there. :)
Hephaestos

I might agree with you on the War on/in/against/for/to kill Iraq... I'm not sure why you sent me a message. I don't think I put my .02 in, though I remember vaguely watching the discussion last night. I'll go take a look, but it isn't something I ever meant to get involved with. I've got enough on my hands right now. Tuf-Kat

JT, I agree with what you wrote on my Talk page. I think taking out the preposition makes it much more NPOV. -- Zoe

JT, my comments on Americocnetrism stem from KF's comments in the talk page for Separation of church and state in which he complains that the article has too much about America in it, but won't do anything about it. -- Zoe

LOL. That's pretty good... Interestingly, I've heard that modern immigrants and descendents of slaves don't get along too well, as both claim the other aren't black enough. Tuf-Kat

Dear Jtdirl,

Thank you for the support expressed on User talk:Arthur3030. I looked at your pages to find common interests, but your knowledge about Ireland is far beyond anything I can address.

I'm actually from the USA (Charleston, South Carolina, the birth of the Confederate States of America (I'm not a fan!). But I've lived elsewhere and had many friends from elsewhere, and count myself an expert about Japanese cuisine above many native Japanese. And so, I agree with you (thank you for your support) that the USA is very self-centered sometimes (almost always on Wikipedia).

But there is much bigoted hatred of the USA, as well. I've heard German people say that Americans are obsessed with hygiene (sp?), and bathe too much. I've heard Japanese people say that Americans are filthy and bathe too little. It's very easy for all of us to think that our way is right..

You and I seem of one mind so far. I like that. Thank you.

Arthur. Arthur 02:43 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering what was your opinion of the use of 'the definite article' in err.. articles, please see Talk:Dragon School, User talk:Maveric149 and talk:Labour Party (UK) Mintguy

I responded to you on my talk page. - Montréalais

Re your: how Bush is viewed internationally (as a shallow, thick as two short planks friend of the oil industry who got himself elected in a manner that if it happened elsewhere would be deemed democratically dubious) he'd come bottom of the list, probably beaten by Homer Simpson (who also seems to have a better grasp of English!) The final Homer Simpson & English bit made my day. Gave me a real belly laugh. Thanks. Tannin

JTD, On the Danish wikipedia http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konger%E6kken, they've apparently taken to using Arabic numbering for regnal numbers... apparently to match an at-least-semi-official Danish website. I was just commiserating with Dan about how peculiar it looks. -- Someone else 00:03 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

JTD, when you get a spare minute, please run your eye over the changes I made to Australian republicanism and Australian Constitutional History just now. They could probably use a little fine tuning. Cheers -- Tannin 11:47 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

It's looking good. Nice work! I'll slip back to it over the weekend and do a few final touches, but nothing substantive, essentially just smoothing and polishing the expression. (My memory for the detais of the proposals and the convention - which ought to be described at a little more length - is weak: I didn't pay too much attention, I'm afraid. You can probably guess which camp I fell into!) Tannin

Danke mein freund.... Its tough, when everyones got a bias... an anon user is still asking "what crisis"! Sheesh. -&#35918&#30505

Abt Danish kings, I havnt the foggiest what this is, but apearently from the official royal website. It can be anything from a young webdesigner just putting through his decision to a well over thought decision. As for me, it looks very strange and it created dead links from the swedish wiki. I think they chose to follow the royal website because presently they dont have many history interested user on the dane wiki. I m pretty sure they will have to change it one day, and I just tried to convince them now, saving later (more) work. Dan Koehl 09:55 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Is this right:

On February 27, 1998 the House of Lords agreed to give a monarch's first-born daughter the same claim to the throne as a first-born son thus ending 1,000 years of male preference.

I just updated British monarch with that bit and want to make sure it is correct. --mav

I hope your views (JTD) don't extend to society, economics, and politics...I would hate to see a world with a basic standard and corporate identity in which everything was done based upon a unity of structure. Susan Mason

I believe in the good of the common worker and the power of true democracy. Coordination requires neither heirarchy nor command. All that is needed is goodwill and love. Susan Mason

The words 'naive' and 'simplistic' comes to mind. JTD 21:59 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC) PS: so you can confirm you are not Lir/Vera? You seem to have the nack of causing 'LIr'-style quarrels with people already

nack has a k in it. Susan Mason

Two, actually. :) -- Oliver P. 02:50 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Hello. I agree with your move of "Papal states" to "Papal States", but it's better to do it by using the cunning "Move this page" feature, so as to preserve the edit history. Hope this helps. :) -- Oliver P. 03:37 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

If you can't convince anyone of your position, you can always try to shout them into submission.

The Australian republicanism page mentions Letters Patent, but does not link to an entry describing them. Now I could go look the term up in some non-wiki source, but if I leave a note on your talk page instead, we might just find that you have taken care of the matter. :) -- Tannin 03:55 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I dont understand why its so hard to understand for some people to apply the basic rules of encyclopedic content universally... It should have been bombed last week! Its disgusting - and 128 saying that he's 'gay and hes not offended' - ridiculous - I dont care if he's hes a lifetime member of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence - its not material for an article. Im glad you took it to Jim, because Axel made a very bad call on that one to begin with... which seems to belie the quality of most of his entries. Be well, and Ill see you later back on the IPF talk page- :) -&#35918&#30505

Cunctator's a jerk. I've even gone so far as to put his emails into my filter so I don't have to read them. I can only think his homophobia has blinded him to NPOV. I've taken it to the mailing list and we've both warned Jimbo about it. Not much more we can do for now. -- Zoe

I replied on my talk page, JTD - easier to follow if it's all in one place. Tannin

Good changes on the Hate speech article. RK

I see you've been the latest target of Lir. I mean, Susan Mason. My condolences. -- Zoe

Bad move. Like I was just explaining to Susan.. (re RK) youre acting in anticipation of what Cung thinks... It doesnt matter what he thinks... Weve been working for consensus here : "homophobic gay hate speech" is inflammatory - anti-Gay slogans is quick and to the point. Im changing them back to redirects. Be bold. -&#35918&#30505

Liked very much your comment to Elliot -- he and the other members of the trinity (as well as one other person) are the reasons I can't be bothered to do more than make and occasional lurking appearance anymore. JHK

Btw, our manual of style suggests using "double quotes": single quotes mess up the search engine, apparently... Martin

Hey, we all have our days. :) -- ヤギ

Now that I have some more time, let me say that I am at heart an arugmentative person. I won't press my point about the Ireland thing any further, but I would appreciate it if you could give me court cases in Ireland regarding conflicts of the English and Irish language. Just to appease my own natural curiosity. -- ヤギ

I appreciate the information on the Irish language. Do you think perhaps the Irish language is treated the way it is, because of its decline to speakers of the English language, instead of (or maybe as a secondary reason) the fact that it's the official language of the country? I'm sure Ireland takes a significant amount of pride in its native language, that has little to do with the law. -- ヤギ

You just have to learn how to argue with me. From Republic:

It is rather difficult to draw a precise line between republics and monarchies.

Which is enough to argue that this text needs to be reflected on the constitutional monarchy page, and such truth is probably the cause of the problem on the Australia page.

Susan Mason

I believe chatrooms which are on the site (not on mIRC) will do a lot to increase communication and decrease confused disagreement. Susan Mason

You really have to tell me what STOD/EIRE means. :-).

So, Siaghan T. O'D? 's cool. -- Zoe

Thanks for the warning about my user page, STÓD/ÉÍRE. In fact, I was trying to chop it down at the time, but you got me in an edit conflict. :) But while we're on the subject, it looks like time you archived your talk page, too! Anyway, as you may have noticed, I'm in a bad mood now; probably best that I go to bed. Slán... :) -- Oliver P. 09:07 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

Various ephemera, nothing of importance, added to Otto of Greece, though you can probably correct/add a bit. Also gave a bit of tactical talk support<G>. -- Someone else 00:20 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

JT, why did you delete the content of Talk:Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother? -- Zoe

JT, your last comment on my Talk page got garbled. I'm not quite sure what you're saying. -- Zoe

LOL, thanks, it's nice to be appreciated once in a while. :) -- Zoe