User talk:Jack forbes/Archive

Why the name changes

Why didn't ya stick with Jack forbes? GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it is likely to cause some confusion? Jack1956 (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, we've also got a Jack1755. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I prefer Jack forbes myself.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Confusion? Nah! In saying that, I don't remember making that post at 15:22. Memory must be going. Jack 1958 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, Jack

How's the wather in Scotland today? Finally the sun is shining here, although the air is quite cool.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, Jeanne. It's just the same here. The suns out and we have a clear blue sky. As I dragged myself out to go to the dentist this morning it was very cold, but fingers crossed it'll warm up a wee bit as the day goes on. Jack 1958 (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I pity you having to go to the dentist. Hopefully it's over by now. I have an aversion to dentists, doctors, hospitals, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The only aversion I have to the dentist is having to answer question when you have the dentists hands and all sorts of tools sticking in your mouth. I just gargle back at him. Jack 1958 (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The sound of the drill reminds me of a medieval torture chamber.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

When I was a kid I'm sure it was a medieval torture chamber. At least, that is my memory of it. Remember Jeanne, it wasn't that long ago, relatively speaking, that there were no injections to numb the mouth. Can you imagine the pain those people had to put up with! I'd rather have no teeth than have those butchers get there hands on me. Hardly bears thinking about. Jack 1958 (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Many people probably opted to endure the toothache. You know, I have always had this theory that the majority of history's cruel tyrants were rendered that way because they suffered from toothache and feared the barber.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

lol. Yeah, wouldn't surprise me. Ghengis Khan, Vlad the Impaler and Margaret Thatcher, all terrified of the barber. That last one was quite topical for the 1980's. :) Jack 1958 (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

• //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jack+1314
• //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jack1297

I forgot exactly what I promised I needed to remember, so the first block when through with "autoblock IP address". It should be fixed now, and it may be that you're on a dynamic IP address and don't care anyway, but let me know if you have any problems and I'll sort it. I've left Jack forbes (talk) unblocked for now, but I can block if you want. I figured it would be easier to wait until any renaming was done, and then I'll block Jack 1958 instead. TFOWR 12:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your probably right to leave Jack forbes unblocked for the moment and then block Jack 1958 when the change of name is put through (hopefully). I noticed the bot has said that a person can't change their name to a user with a number of edits. I'm hoping someone will come along and look at my reasons and take that into account. Your a good man TFOWR. Cheers! Jack 1958 (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly disappointed my choice of heading/edit summary didn't provoke outrage... c'mon! Jack! Blocked! That's got to cause some pitchfork-wielding townsfolk to start hammering at my door, surely?! TFOWR 13:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Or hammering at your door offering gifts. :) I hesitate myself when my eye catches it. lol. Jack 1958 (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Status at Wikipedia

I am curious. What happens to an editor's status at Wikipedia once he or she has been blocked? What kind of repercussions can they suffer?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand Jimmy Wales sends out his heavies to teach you a lesson. :) It all depends on the type of block. If your blocked for a short while the only repurcussions I can think of is that some people may bring it up on an occasion where they are having a dispute with you. Just to show that your the bad guy and their as white as snow. I'm sure TFOWR could answer the question more succinctly than I could. Jack 1958 (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does it say you're blocked, when you're not? GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hooray! Someone with a pitchfork. You'll have to read the whole thread, GoodDay. Jack 1958 (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, you caused me to get an edit conflict. Hey being blocked couldn't be worse than the fall I took off the intellectual ladder after I admitted to believing and practising astrology!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You think they took you less seriously? I don't believe in it, but I do know that your a smart cookey, Jeanne. Jack 1958 (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, a lot of them took the piss.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Turn the other cheek and if they do it again kick them in the b***s. At least, I think that's what it says in the bible. I haven't read it for a while. Jack 1958 (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you believe we had three King James Version bibles in our house? We didn't have a Catholic Bible seeing as my dad had been excommunicated long before I was born.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant to ask why. I've never known anyone personally to be excommunicated. Wouldn't even know how to get myself excommunicated. Jack 1958 (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My dad was divorced when he married my mother so the Church threw him out!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Bloody draconian isn't it! Do they still have the same rules today? Jack 1958 (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Divorced people are still prohibited from taking communion, and they cannot act as godparents. Delightful, eh?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Speak of the devil, an IP is threatening to have me BLOCKED here: Bobby Sands!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't think you've much to worry about there. Jack 1958 (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously though, I'm happy you've decided to try & change back to the 'Jack forbes' name. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack forbes re-united

Now, that's much better, seeing you back at your original account name. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Jack forbes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Daicaregos (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

wohooo! I'm just back and found this out. I'm starting to feel myself again already. Jack 1958 (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've now logged into my original account so I should arrange to block the Jack 1958 account. Jack forbes (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm like a kid in a sweety shop the way I'm reacting to this. I think I'll go and have a lie down now. Jack forbes (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just blocked Jack 1958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)... Jack forbes (talk) should be the only un-blocked account now. TFOWR 16:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. TFOWR, if you need any help in the future and I'm capable of giving it just give me a prod. I won't forget this cobber. Jack forbes (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

So you were blocked after all Jack :) Daicaregos (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I always knew it would happen. Have you seen GoodDay's talk page, Dai? Jack forbes (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No. I'll take a butchers' now. Daicaregos (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Heh, my first thought was that there was an AFD: Induk University (AfD discussion). But you've already helped there ;-) TFOWR 16:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If I see you in future trying to save an article I'll step in and try to help with refs and such. You saved that one well, TFOWR. Jack forbes (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Go Alonso!

After about an hour's delay, the race had a happy ending!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Webber really screwed it up and Vettel was unlucky his car gave up on him so close to the end. Alonso was a happy boy wasn't he. I've never heard a formula one driver giggle so much after a race win. Jack forbes (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

He's now number one in line for the championship.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

List of countries

I maybe ABF on the part of the exclusionist, but I suspect they'll react negatively to such a creation without sovereign/non-sovereign divisions. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

They can be as negative as they like. The fact is if people followed the rules of reliable sources and numerous other wikipedia rules there would be no question that a list of countries should exist with all countries included. Jack forbes (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the multiple meaning of the word 'country' that's sticky. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, a country is a country no matter what. Perhaps we should split up the list of sovereign country article into those who are democratic, socialist, communist, etc. It is not for us to define what is and what is not a country. Reliable sources do that, part of the core wikipedia policy. Jack forbes (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out what the core of the inclusion/exclusion of E/W/S/NI is. You guys can argue reliable sources until you're exhausted, it won't impress the exclusionists. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And that's exactly what is wrong with this place. The exclusionists completely ignore policy when it goes against their personal opinion. Dai has pointed policy out to them numerous times and has basically been told to shove policy. Not literally, but they would have been just as well saying that. Jack forbes (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

When you create the article List of countries, merely have 2 sections in it, 'sovereign' & 'non-sovereign' (afterall, that's more informative) & will have a better chance at survival. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely delightful

Aren't some of the editors over at Ref Desk Humanities absolutely delightful? Epitomes of charm, gentility, humour, and politesse. Jesus wept.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

All quite pathetic to be honest, and your right, it's Francophobia. It's not something that you'll hear in Scotland but which I see quite often in the English media. I could mention that 200,000 British troops were chased off the continent by the German army in world war II, but why bother. There are bigots of all persuasions on wikipedia, most of whom don't deserve the time of day. Jack forbes (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think people like to play the devil's advocate over on the Ref Desk Humanities. Read the bit I brought up about Lee Harvey Oswald and the media. See how my opinions were shot down (pun not intended!)! I believe my observations are valid ones, but....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The same editor who had a go at you is now lecturing me on the Norman invasion! Jesus wept.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And here I was thinking

it was going to be another boring Saturday night at Wikipedia!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I was going to give him/her a warning template but I've never used them and it would take too long to figure it out. Jack forbes (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Me too. So I decided to go for 'Welcome' instead :) doesn't seem to have worked too well, though. Daicaregos (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Another editor already has. He/she is still flaming though.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that after notifying an admin. Hopefully he/she will calm down now. Jack forbes (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Noting that they don't care that they violate 3RR after being reverted (again) was not a long-term move. I feel a block coming on. Daicaregos (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure they do too. A short wikipedia career coming to an end quite soon I reckon. Jack forbes (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked the editor to engage in discussion on the article's talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Who knows, after their block they may discuss it civily. Jack forbes (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope so. There was no need to get so worked up. I had calmly explained when I first reverted that Wikipedia has an article on Anne Boleyn in popular culture, hence the new section was not needed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. I'd nearly finished my 3RR report too: Daicaregos (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Dai. All that hard work gone to waste. :) At least one admin will be keeping an eye on them. Jack forbes (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Bet some editors can knock those reports out in two minutes flat. Takes me bloody ages. To be honest, I hope I never get used to them. Daicaregos (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sibyl

Saw you removed your query on the Sibyl de Neufmarché Talkpage. If you have a query it's better to address it. I think we're going for WP:GAN, so it's bound to crop up. Rather better to come from you mate. Not completely sure what you are challenging. Is it the sentence from the article: "However, it is clear from the maritagiem (marriage charter), arranged by King Henry in 1121, that Bernard was still alive when it was written; showing Bernard Bolingbroke Woodward's version of the story to diverge from the known facts"? If so, it is not a direct quote. The maritagiem makes it clear that Bernard was still alive when it was written. The Bernard Bolingbroke Woodward version of the story says he was not. The sentence points out the difference between the two. I can't see a problem. But do you think the sentence should be changed? Daicaregos (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the Jeniffer Ward source I'm questioning. It's possible I can't see what you and Jeanne can see on the source. There is nothing in the source that that I see that confirms he was alive at the marriage. As I said in my deleted post, if we had a source that directly quoted the maritagiem and backed up the assertion that he was living it would be far better. As I also said, if there is one there and I've missed it you can slap me with a trout. :) Jack forbes (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The J Ward source shows the page (P.26) on which is written the entire charter as translated from the Latin. She retrieved the document from Public Record Office as I have already noted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Bugger! I never clicked on to the whole source and have wasted everyones time. Hides his head in shame :( Sorry guys. Jack forbes (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You have nothing to be ashamed of. As editors we have to be prepared for readers to challenge our statements, and the onus is on us to provide refs to back them up.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's nice of you, Jeanne. I do though still need that trouting. :) Jack forbes (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No you don't. It was a challenge answering your queries.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No trout required. There's no reason you shouldn't ask to clarify something you're not sure of. In fact, I'd rather you did. When you've been working on the same thing for days on end, you start to miss things that people coming to it fresh see straight away. Fresh eyes are always welcome. Especially from someone you know has no axe to grind. So please don't stop asking. Daicaregos (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that Dai, but with the provisio that I'll read the sources a little more carefully. You are both doing a fantastic job on the article by the way. Jack forbes (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate the help Dai has given me on this article. He's a first-class editor with a keen eye for detail. I also appreciate your help, Jack. And your questions were important.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you got your Hallowe'en costume on yet?

I just had a few pics taken of myself in a fright mask. I shall not be uploading them to Wikipedia. Even my cat was scared when he saw me!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Go on! We really need to see them. If it's as scary as your cat seems to think I could use the image to frighten off the trick or treaters who darken my door tonight. Jack forbes (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No my witch doll is enough. Anyway, I need to upload the photos from my digital camera onto the PC so they aren't available for uploading here yet. I used to love going out trick-or-treating when I was a kid.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I used to do the same myself. Was never given any cash right enough. It was all sweets, apples, monkey nuts, etc. Jack forbes (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)