User talk:Jdforrester/Old Archive 7

Archives of earlier items from this page are available:

• 28th Feb 2003 – 13th Feb 2004,
• 15th Feb 2004 – 05th Aug 2004,
• 06th Aug 2004 – 15th Sep 2004,
• 15th Sep 2003 – 23th Nov 2004,
• 25th Nov 2004 – 10th Mar 2005, and
• 10th Mar 2005 – 11th May 2005.

---

Note that I am likely to reformat, delete, or otherwise alter what appears here...

Wikipedia:Arbitration rationale

Can you explain how this is active? It hasn't seen a major edit in one full year and anything this intended to be has been moved elsewhere. -- Netoholic @ 20:59, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Umm.

This is a mildly perplexing question.

Nothing has replaced it. It is "active" in as much as it ever was. I know this, because (a) I wrote it, and (b) I wrote the policy it talks about, and (c) they haven't diverged very much.

I don't quite see how it can't be active. What do you mean by "moved elsewhere" - where, exactly, has it moved?.

James F. (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Most of the ideas have been put into the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy itself, which is now a bit more flexible as to how it documents the Arb process. Frankly, it was a discussion page that was active for all of two weeks in Feb 2004 and didn't take off. It's not in use and is only for historical interest (hence the tag). If things change and it becomes re-activated, anyone can remove the tag then. -- Netoholic @ 21:09, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

No, you mis-understand. It was not meant as a discussion page, and never served as such (Arbitration policy isn't up for discussion, after all). It is, instead, more of an elaboration page for those confused by the meaning. I (and members of the Ccmmittee) still refer people to it. And yes, whilst the policy document itself does contain a small amount of explanation, the actual rational is very much lacking.

James F. (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Aw, now I know you're pulling my leg. When's the last time anyone was referred to it? Special:Whatlinkshere/Arbitration rationale doesn't show any major linkage. This is only of historical interest. I'm going to replace the tag (like I said, if this ever becomes more than reading material, it can be removed again). It is nothing more than commentary and cruft at the present. Sorry if you want to relive the glory days, but stop fighting over something which is of no consequence to anyone today. -- Netoholic @ 21:29, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it of no consequence to anyone today ... it could do with an update, though. See its talk page (a much better place to discuss an edit than edit summaries) - David Gerard 21:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone and Davenbelle

Hi! Trey Stone has Requested Arbitration with me:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle/Evidence

You are mentioned in evidence that I have presented and I'm bringing this to your attention. Comments and evidence of your own are welcome.

Sincerely, Davenbelle 01:13, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Soon-to-be life peers

I'm afraid I've removed all your "soon to be Baron(ess) Somethings" from people soon to be given life peerages. We have absolutely no way of predicting what their titles will be - around half of them definitely can't have their plain surnames as titles, because they're already taken (or sound too similar to existing titles), some may take territorial titles (as the now Lord Ballyedmond did last year), and some may take "of Somewhere" bits even if they don't need to. Proteus (Talk) 10:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Trinity College

I'm afraid that New Court, Trinity has never (to my knowledge) had the name "Tree Court". On the other hand, King's Court was actually the official name of the court when it was build, and "the new court" just a nickname (though New Court has become the de facto name of the court). Do you have any sources for the name "Tree Court", or is it just a modern nick-name? Bluap 09:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Modern nick name, yeah. I agree, it's probably never been officially called that (though of course Caius has a real Tree Court).

James F. (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Strangely, I'd never heard this nickname while I was a student at Trinity from 1992 until 2000 Bluap 20:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Ratification

James, I did not mean to question your behavior, and you've every right to be annoyed with me. When I first saw Whig remove "consensus" from the wording, I thought he was doing it because I'd pointed out the illogic of ratifying consensus, and grumbled accordingly. When I checked the page history I broadened my comment, but didn't lessen the tone. You're aboslutely right, that if the vote has nothing to do with consensus, it has no reason to be whatsoever. Apologies, Mackensen (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. My annoyed tone was mainly due to the exam that I had coming up this morning (eek!).

James F. (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Restoring LGBT categories

After much discussion and debate there was strong support to retore LGBT subcategories (see: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 7. As your bot removed them, can you now restore them? Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 07:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Glad the decision to undelete came through.

Category:LGBT actors - list - Done (120)

Category:LGBT artists - list - Done (51)

Category:LGBT athletes - list - Done (25)

Category:LGBT musicians - list - Done (167)

Category:LGBT politicians - list - Done (79)

Working on it now.

James F. (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

...

Done.

09:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank You. -- Samuel Wantman 06:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

No problem. :-) James F. (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Sandro Botticelli

What is the detail in Botticelli's biography that makes him a candidate for a gay artist category? Please enter it into the article, since your bot keeps adding Botticelli to the category. We'd all be interested. --Wetman 19:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Umm. All I'm doing is having my bot re-add him to the category that I was mistakenly asked to have it remove him from two weeks ago. I'm not saying anything about whether or not the information is true.

James F. (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Looking for help on a major wiki project

Hey :) I was wondering if you'd be interesting in helping out with www.Knowmore.org, a corporation search wiki we're trying to get off the ground. We could DEFINATELY use some people that know how to make a wiki community great & the site is almost a blank slate at this point. It's been heavily customized and is designed to help responsible consumers enter any product or company name and immediatly find information about that co. (the main focus of the wiki is corporate & political information in a much more specialized way then wikipedia currently offers) Let me know if you're interested! aim: knowmoreorg or bernard@knowmore.org

Nobot.

I am using search and replace, and checking history/diff every article. Please let me know which article the problem occurred in. For more details see my user page. Rich Farmbrough 10:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

LGBT designations

I removed your Category designations "Gay, lesbian or bisexual people" and "LGBT actors" from Greta Garbo. While there has been much speculation about her sexuality, I don't think Wikipedia is a place where we should gave a label of any sort on any issue based on nothing more than speculation. An encyclopedia article cannot make a statement of fact without the necessary proof to back it up. It seems we are at times prone to write things about the dead that we never would if they were alive because of thje threat of a lawsuit. (I'm thinking of Tom Cruise in particular]].) I have done a lot of writing/reseach on the early film industry and have never found a shred of proof that Garbo was a lesbian or bisexual. I did find a lot of jealous "macho" men she had spurned whose egos were so large that they called her a lesbian. Of course you may have come across factual information that I have not so if that's the case, please insert it in the article and reinstate the categories I deleted. Thanks. Ted Wilkes 18:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, not my adding of it, but never mind.

James F. (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Ratificaiton on honorifics

I put together what I hope is a neutrally presented view - would appreciate if you copyedit it to make it more neutral where possible. I hope that pointing out the issues will help avoid them in the future. However, I am frustrated with the changed presentation of the vote from the Survey to the Ratification and doubt I have been as neutral as I should be. Can you take a look? Trödel|talk 23:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Trödel|talk 23:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Not quite suitable for a featured article

but a very nice article I thought I'd draw your attention to nonetheless. This (though not this particular article) is the sort of thing I've been doing instead of revising lately :-/ .

[ PeteVerdon 00:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)]

Cute. :-)

Yes, not FA-able quite yet, but there's nothing inherently non-FA-able about the article.

Good luck with it. Hope to see it on FAC at some point. :-)

James F. (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Invitiation to join the Wikimedia Research Team

Hello James,

I'd like to invite you to join the Wikimedia Research Team which I'm building on Meta with support from the Foundation Board of Trustees. Our goal is to work together to systematically analyze the needs of the projects, conduct research and collect empirical data, interview users, build relationships with outside developers, examine project proposals, and make recommendations to the Board for targeted software development.

I'm contacting you because I got the impression during the London meetup that you have a keen understanding of many of the issues that concern Wikimedia, the right mix of experience, technical knowledge and a sense of feasibility. I would love to discuss matters like peer review, workflow processes, usability, and so on. Your involvement wouldn't necessarily mean any further time commitment on your part, but it would be nice to see you at meetings, and share ideas on the present and future of the project with you. If you're interested, just add yourself to the list of Current Members, and I will inform you about all future developments.--Eloquence* 16:29, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I have.

James F. (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! Could you be so kind to send me your current business card templates to moeller(AT)scireview(DOT)de? Thanks,--Eloquence* 02:01, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Also done.

James F. (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Boldness

Hi there! I'm sorry if I seem pushy at times, let me assure you that that isn't my intent. If/when people disagree with what I do, usually I try to discuss the matter on talk pages, and get a third opinion if necessary. Could you please show me where I have erred to the side of pushiness, so that I can try and avoid that in the future? Thanks. Radiant_* 09:46, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hmph!

I'm not American, I just couldn't think of the right phrasing :) sjorford →•← 20:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*grins*

James F. (talk) 19:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up my mistake. :) Inter\^Echo 11:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem. :-)

James F. (talk) 11:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Petrol

I just thought I'd let you know that Talk:Petrol has become quite heated. User:Bastique has unilaterally decided to change the article's title from what you had made it last year, and is making personal attacks against you (and other people, including admins). From reading his comments on that page and elsewhere, it looks to me that he has a vendetta against people from the UK and those outside the United States. See his blog (linked from his user page) for further evidence. The complete opposite of NPOV. I thought you had a right to know. Please do something about this, because the debate is degrading into a ruckus. - OptimusPrime 08:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He just entered the debate recently, which had been going on for a while before he became aware of it. There's a lot of anonymous trolling on the petrol side of things, so people are understandably getting annoyed. - Omegatron 19:19, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot of heated debate, certainly. Calling people trolls is never helpful (and I've ruled to ban people for what a great many people regarded as trolling, so I am perhaps a bit of an expert in the field). Please don't do it.

James F. (talk) 19:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess since this conversation was going on here; obviously you should now understand my insinuation of trolliness on your part was entirely impetuous, misdirected and unfortunate. In actuality, at the time of the comment, I had not read the entire discourse completely and thought it was someone else who moved the page. Please accept my personal and sincerest apologies. On another note, I've decided that I like the UK spelling of Yoghurt better.  :-) ℬastique▼^talk 21:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We'll convert you yet! ;-)

(No, I'm not a rabid pro-BE or pro-AE or pro-much of anything, so this is entirely in jest.)

James F. (talk) 22:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:07, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

krill

hallo James! can you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Antarctic_krill maybe help with some editing / formatting / vote - best greetings Uwe Kils 20:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

DVDEmpire.com and associated redirects

elements cross-posted

Cheers, James; Sorry for my misguided editing on that page (speedy and graphics deletion), but I'm still slightly concerned about the content of that entry. Also that the user who created the entry refers to the company as "we" and "our". Do you think that this article is subject to a VfD for advertisement? Leave me one on my talk, thanks :) jglc | t | c 18:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can understand your hesitance, but it looks OK to me.

As for the "advertising" part of our policies, that is merely a recommendation so that people who are overly emotionally involved in a particular subject are encouraged not to edit them - in this case, I feel that it is fine.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 18:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Just checking. jglc | t | c 18:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Problems: I tried to re-edit DVDEmpire.com for a more NPOV entry, and the user has come after me on my talk page, telling me that my grammar was poor, I have "problems with pornography", and asking me for information on my "supervisor". Can you please help me out with this? Thanks, jglc | t | c 20:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dealt with, I think.

James F. (talk) 15:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theo RFA

A pint? A pint! Is that all it took to bribe you? Thank you for being so easily influenced. And, all joking aside, I really do appreciate your support.—Theo (Talk) 11:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thank you for supporting me! --Kbdank71 13:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peerage edit

elements cross-posted

I've reverted your odd edit [1] of redirecting a page on a Peerage to its sole occupant; was there a particular reason you did this? Accident, perhaps?

James F. (talk) 20:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did it because, to my knowledge — and I've worked extensively on peerage-related articles — it's standard practice that when a particular title had only a single holder in a single incarnation, then the title itself did not warrant a page, as that information would be better incorporated in a discussion of the holder; instead, that page would function as a redirect. I did so for Curzon under that principle, and changed the article to reflect that. Wally 20:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Although sensible, I suppose, it's definitely not standard practice (I've seen and edited dozens of single-use titles). Perhaps suggest this on the WikiProject?

James F. (talk) 21:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I was mistaken — I had thought it was standard practice. Irregardless it helps reduce confusion and clutter. Not a bad idea, yours. Wally 22:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Royal consorts and monarchs

hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [2] cheers Antares911 23:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, looking into it.

James F. (talk) 10:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi there James F. and, any comments? do you think what we are discussing is good or do you have any suggestions? you can reply on my talk page if you want.. Antares911 29 June 2005 13:14 (UTC)

Image:Map of Tennessee highlighting Sevier County.png

Hi. I noticed that the image Image:Map of Tennessee highlighting Sevier County.png doesn't exist. Was this an oversight (maybe in the uploading)? I found you listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. counties; let me know if I should contact someone else. Thanks. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 18:10, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Oversight in creation. Hmm.

James F. (talk) 19:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Meta adminship note

This is a note to say that I am requesting adminship on Meta for the account m:User:Jdforrester.

James F. (talk) 23:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 30 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)

United Kingdom

elements cross-posted

I deleted the line for the reasons given on the talk page: it is a questionable assertation. I've never heard of anyone being offended by the use of "Britain" meaning the United Kingdom, and neither had the user that replied to me on the talk page. Perhaps it might in Northern Ireland, since that is not part of the mainland, but the statement implies it might cause offence to anyone in the UK. I understand that refering to the UK as "England" may causes offence to Scots/Welsh/Irish, but that is not what the statement says. Deus Ex 2 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)

Then you should have said so in the edit summary. That's what they are for. I would have thought that an editor like you who has been around for so long would know that.

James F. (talk) 2 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)

Well, you have my deepest apologies that I failed to do so on this ocassion. I usually do write an edit summary, I wasn't intending to make a edit surreptitiously. Deus Ex 2 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound like an accusation. :-)

James F. (talk) 2 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)

That's OK James F. :-) Sorry, I went a bit over the top there too. I agree with your comments on the talk page-I think the statement should emphasise the potential for offensiveness for Unionists, and the fact that its plain innaccurate and annoying for other people in the UK. Deus Ex 2 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)

you're welcome!

as always--and do it for me please if ever necessary! Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 5 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

---

Come to my userpage!--Yo Mama 5000 6 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:RFA

I intend very soon to revert your archiving of Talk re the arbitration case in which I am embroiled. The main reason is that the case is unfinshed and therefore it is inappropriate to archive chat about it. More personally: It is one thing to be ignored - it is another to have the ArbCom's embarassment swept under the carpet. Paul Beardsell 6 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

Then you should have merely re-instated the section, not un-archived the whole lot and left the archive page adrift. *rolls eyes*

And, BTW, comments on your case belong on the talk pages of your case; the comments I archived were over a fortnight stale, and mostly referred to the accepting of the case, not its subsequent hearing.

James F. (talk) 8 July 2005 13:26 (UTC)

Current events

As Current events states, "To read and write about current events in detail, please visit our sister project, Wikinews." In other words, we have another outlet for news. I don't find the main current event page particularly encyclopedic, but I understand its usefulness as an explanation page. I don't, however, see much usefulness in splitting this up by country. Imho, of course. Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 11:18 (UTC)

Evidently "detail" is in the eye of the beholder. :-)

James F. (talk) 8 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)

British and Irish current events

I note you voted keep in the above page's VfD, and I was wondering if you'd consider helping to keep it updated. Thanks for your time, Steve block 21:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

UK Acts of Parliament naming conventions

cross-posted to our talk-pages

... you know, this is exactly what IRC is for; I'd have known where I'd written the conventions immediately (well, duh ;-)).

Drop by some time. :-)

James F. (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Lol, I tend to avoid IRC, cos it takes me forever to /part. And it takes me long enough to log off from the Wikipedia as it is! ;) — OwenBlacker 23:52, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Part? Who said "part"? ;-)

You can always /nick Owen|Away, as I do often when I'm actually not away, just working.

James F. (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Lol. Nah, I don't have the time for the bits of my life as it is. IRC destroys time almost as efficiently as this 'ere Wikipedia. (And yeah, my nick usually is Owen|Away ;) — OwenBlacker 00:04, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries

I've recently discovered that there's a huge amount of still yet-to-be-converted CIA World Factbook material about various countries, especially territories and developing countries. I have started a category for such articles Category:CIA World Factbook cleanup and made a post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#Reinvigorating_this_project suggesting the project be re-vitalised. Suggestions would be welcome! Morwen - Talk 12:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Cricket on VfD

Hiya. You previously voted 'keep' on the VfD for Nottinghamshire_v_Yorkshire_26_June_2005 and other subarticles of 2005 English cricket season. I just wanted to let you know that these pages have promptly been put back up for deletion, this time at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Essex_v_Glamorgan_15_May_2005. Those of us who have worked on these articles would value your continued support. Thanks and best wishes. --Ngb 19:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth II renaming (round XXXIV)

You may have noticed *mega sigh* that yet another user has dragged up the lets rename Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom farce, only 9 days after the last vote ended. (What next? A vote every day on the issue next?) I have proposed instead this vote on Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom page:

That Wikipedia stop wasting time on endless revoting on this (goddamned) issue and ban votes on this issue from this page for at least six months.

Hopefully this will put this nonsense to bed for at least 6 months. Your (hopefully final) vote would be welcome. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

London Wikimeet

elements cross-posted

Well done. I think you have proved the benefit of being bold. Several previous London wikimeets have floundered from too much indecisive discussion about dates and venues. -- Solipsist 22:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. The last one similarly floundered until I was a bit bold and made a decision, too.

Hope that this doesn't mean that I will become the standard socials organiser.. ;-)

James F. (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Hi there!

On Wikipedia, we have a rule that a great number of people take very seriously called the "three-revert rule", oft shortened to "3RR", which is described here. I imagine that you weren't aware of this rule until now; what it means is that, in any 24-hour period, users should not make more than three reverts on any one page; if they do so, they are likely to be blocked by a sysop (senior editor, such as me) for up to 24 hours, as a form of giving people an opportunity to "cool-down".

I've noted that you have, indeed, done so, on Talk:David S. Touretzky; I hope that you will take this rule into account in your future editing, both for your ease and the rest of our's, too.

Yours sincerely,

James F. (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The fourth is not a revert. --AI 23:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)